Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INDO-EUROPEAN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT (PERSIAN GULF SECTION).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the conditions on which the Persian Gulf section of the Indo-European Telegraph Department of the India Office is being transferred to a commercial company?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The operations of the Indo-European Telegraph Department in Persia and the Persian Gulf are being terminated on the 1st March next. The question of the arrangements for the working of the cable system in the Persian Gulf after that date is bound up with negotiations which are still proceeding with the Persian Government. Pending the conclusion of these negotiations I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be in a position to make some statement about the terms?

Mr. BENN: It will be done as soon as possible, but I cannot, give a date.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether leave, already earned and due, on pay, will be ensured to every member of the staff of the Indo-European Telegraph Department of the India Office now serving in the Persian Gulf section; and whether the scale of pension and gratuity to be fixed will take into account the severe climatic conditions in the Persian Gulf and the virtual impossibility for such members of obtaining any employ-
ment elsewhere for the rest of their lives, having regard to the fact that telegraphy is virtually a Government monopoly both in India and the United Kingdom?

Mr. BENN: I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the scheme of compensation for officers of the Indo-European Telegraph Department whose services are being dispensed with, including the terms under which leave may be granted; all relevant considerations have been taken into account in fixing the scale of gratuities and pensions granted under this scheme. The restriction of the grant of leave to a maximum of four months on average pay, if earned, provided in the scheme, is one of the factors which have been taken into consideration in approving the grant of additions to pensions and gratuities.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that if he were one of these officers he would he quite content with the treatment proposed to be given to them?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why should there be different treatment to these officers than is given to the working-classes?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the staff of the Indo-European Telegraph Department of the India Office now serving in the Persian Gulf have the option of retiring on full pension or gratuity or are being compulsorily transferred to a commercial company; and, if they are so transferred, what steps have been taken to safeguard the terms of their employment and to compensate them for the loss of prospects held out to them on their original engagement?

Mr. BENN: Those members of the staff of the Indo-European Telegraph Department who are being offered employment with a commercial concern after the termination of their services on the 1st March next will have the option of retiring on the terms and conditions given to officers of the Department whose employment is terminated and the question of compulsory transfer does, therefore, not arise.

MR. GANDHI.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 4 and 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he will state the result of the interview granted by the Viceroy to Mr. Gandhi;
(2) whether he can now make a statement as to the political position in India as a result of the consultations between the Indian members of the Round Table Conference and the leaders of the Congress party?

Mr. FREEMAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information with regard to the attitude of the Congress party towards the Round Table Conference proposals?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to give the House regarding the conversations which recently took place between the Viceroy of India and Mr. Gandhi?

Mr. BENN: Conversations have taken place and are still proceeding. I fear there is nothing I can usefully add at present to the formal communique issued on 19th February.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: We are all anxious not to do anything to upset the conversations which are taking place, but I should like to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will endeavour to see that any statement which is made should be made in this House, and should not appear as a disjointed statement in the newspapers?

Mr. BENN: Certainly, I will. I always desire to show the greatest respect to this House.

AIR MAIL SERVICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6 and 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) how far the Indian air mail is carried by air beyond Karachi; and whether and, if so, when it is proposed to extend it;
(2) whether British civil aeroplanes with mails to Burma, the Straits Settlements and Australia are permitted to fly across India; and whether he can state the cause of the delay in establishing this service?

Mr. BENN: The intention is that Imperial Airways should carry the air mails from the United Kingdom to Karachi and that the Government of India should run their own service across India. As regards the extension to Australia, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air, on 20th January. The service is at present in operation between the United Kingdom and Delhi only. The delay in extending it across India has been due partly to technical difficulties in establishing the ground organisation across Burma, partly to financial stringency and partly to changes of plans. The extension to Calcutta is expected to be in operation by the end of this year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it Imperial Airways who are carrying that part of the line which goes beyond Karachi to Delhi?

Mr. BENN: No; the Government of India.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that there are difficulties in the matter of landing grounds in the extension of the line beyond Delhi to Calcutta?

Mr. BENN: I have stated the reasons for the delay. If my hon. and gallant Friend desires detailed information as to the reasons generally stated, I shall be happy to supply them.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: Is it not an unfortunate thing that, in spite of difficulties, the French and Dutch lines should be flying across India before the British lines, and will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to expedite the British Flying Service between Karachi and Calcutta?

Mr. BENN: Yes, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the French and Dutch flights have not taken place under the conditions which he envisages as applying to any British concern. In point of fact, the flying done has been done under the control of the Government of India.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the French and the Dutch were on the scene before the present Government came into office, and when the Tory Government were in office?

ANDAMAN WATERS (JAPANESE FISHERMEN).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been sanctioned by the Government of India to prevent poaching by Japanese fishermen in Andaman waters; and whether any steps have hitherto been taken to survey, preserve and regulate the working of the fisheries, and especially the shell fisheries round the islands?

Mr. BENN: The necessary action is taken under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Regulation, 1876, of which I will send a copy to my hon. and gallant Friend. Rules have recently been prepared for the management and control of the shell fishery.

RECLAIMED LAND, BACKBAY, BOMBAY.

Major POLE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any considerable area of the land reclaimed from Backbay, Bombay, has been taken over by the central government for military or other purposes; and whether, at the present rate at which the reclaimed land is being sold to the public or otherwise disposed of, it is expected to complete the amended scheme of reclamation in the course of the next financial year?

Mr. BENN: 231 acres out of a total of about 550 acres have been or are being taken over for military purposes. The work of dredging was completed nearly two years ago, but I have no recent information as to the progress made in completing the work of reclamation by murum topping or as to the disposal of the land.

MALAY STATES DELEGATION.

Major POLE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in the matter of the decision of the Government of India, to send out this year a delegation to the Malay States, any steps have yet been taken; and whether the desirability of the delegation's terms of reference being so drawn as to enable it to investigate not only the labour conditions of Indians in Malaya, but also their position in the matter of political status and civic rights, has been considered?

Mr. BENN: The delegation has again been postponed until normal economic conditions have been re-established in Malaya. As regards the purpose of the delegation I cannot add anything to the
replies given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 12th February and 12th May of last year.

CONFERENCE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to His Majesty's Government's plans for carrying on the work of the Round Table Conference?

Mr. BENN: I have not at the moment any specific announcement to make.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to say whether a Conference will be held in India at all?

Mr. BENN: That and similar points are matters on which I have no information to give.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the Secretary of State for India able to give the approximate date when be will be able to make an announcement to the House on this important question?

Mr. BENN: The question is important, but I would ask the Noble Lord not to pin me down to any definite date. The moment there is anything really to be said it will be said.

BARRACKS AND MILITARY HOSPITALS.

Earl WINTERTON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the progress made in past years in improving the accommodation and amenities of British and Indian military hospitals and of electrification in barracks in India is being maintained?

Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir. The original programme for improving hospitals and electrifying British barracks is on the point of completion, and steady progress is being made with the improvement of Indian troops lines.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is this service paid for by the British Exchequer?

Mr. BENN: It is paid for out of the Indian Revenues.

OPERATIONS, NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.

Earl WINTERTON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the various military and Air Force operations in the North-West Frontier
province which have taken place in the last 12 months have been financed from special grants or from the ordinary military budget?

Mr. BENN: From the ordinary military budget.

Earl WINTERTON: Does that mean that there will be a shortage of money to carry out the proposals under the five-years' budget plan?

Mr. BENN: No, I understand that these charges come within the limits of the contract budget.

Earl WINTERTON: Before the Debate which is to take place before Easter, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to obtain the figures of the actual expenditure?

Mr. BENN: I shall fortify myself with information on all those matters.

ENGLISH COTTON GOODS (BOYCOTT).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action has been taken by the Government of India against those who have again picketed the cloth shops and prevented the sale of English cotton goods?

Mr. BENN: When the law is broken the police exercise the powers with which they are invested. No special action has been taken by the Government of India.

Sir F. HALL: Is picketing still being allowed?

Mr. BENN: I have answered that question. There are powers in existence for preventing it.

POLICE.

Sir F. HALL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India what scale of compensation is paid in the Presidencies of Bengal and Bombay, respectively, to policemen of all ranks permanently incapacitated in the course of their duty and to the dependants of such men killed on duty?

Mr. BENN: As the reply is somewhat long, I propose, with the hon. and gallant. Member's permission, to circulate it.

Following is the reply:

Officers of the All-India service known as the Indian Police Service, or their families, may, in the circumstances stated, be granted awards—additional to any service invalid pension or family pension otherwise admissible—assessed under Army Regulations, as though they had been military commissioned officers on active service, according to a scale of relative rank based on rates of pay. In the case of other members of the police forces, powers to make rules in this matter have been delegated to local Governments. According to the latest information available to me, in Bengal and Bombay officers whose pay is not less than Rs. 200 a month (£180 a year) are subject to the rules applicable to the Indian Police Service, the relative rank, where pay is less than Rs. 350 a month—£320 a year—being that of Warrant Officer. Officers on pay of less than Rs. 200 a month may be granted pensions—additional to any service invalid pension that may be admissible—subject to a maximum of one third of their pay and, if the officer is wholly incapacitated from earning a living, to a minimum of Rs. 10 a month. If such an officer is killed his family may be granted a family pension equal to one-half of his pay.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any arrangements have been made for the recognition of exceptional and good work in this time of strain by the members of the police forces in India in the way of special pensions or gratuities; and, if so, will he give particulars?

Mr. BENN: I understand that several local Governments have sanctioned the grant of special allowances for additional duty in areas where the strain is especially severe.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Have these allowances been paid by the local Governments? Is it the case that there is no special rate all over India and that no new arrangements have been made?

Mr. BENN: No, I think it is a matter that has been dealt with by the local Governments. I will give the hon. Member particulars if be wishes to have them.

WAZIRISTAN.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present position in Waziristan; and whether there have been any attacks since 1st January last on troops, khassadars, or scouts?

Mr. BENN: From the information at my disposal the position appears to be quite satisfactory. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

INDIAN ARMY (MECHANISATION).

Sir W. BRASS: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India to what extent progress of mechanisation in the Indian Army compares with the progress made in mechanisation in this country?

Mr. BENN: I am circulating a statement with regard to the progress made in India. Any comparison between what is being done in India and in this country would be misleading as the conditions are essentially different.

Sir W. BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made?

Mr. BENN: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find the statement quite satisfactory.

Following is the statement:

Progress of Mechanisation.

Army in India.

19th February,1931.

1. The following, are completely Mechanised:

1 Field Brigade, Royal Artillery.
2 Divisional Ammunition Column, Royal Artillery.
1 Field Artillery Ammunition Column.
1 Field Troop, Sappers and Miners.
1 Corps Signals.
1 Cavalry Brigade Signal Troop.
1 Cavalry Brigade Train.
2 Divisional Trains.

2. The following are in process of mechanisation and completion is expected by the end of 1930–31:

1 Anti-Aircraft Battery.
1 Field Troop, Sappers and Miners.
1 Corps Signals.
1 Cavalry Brigade Signal Troop.
1 Cavalry Brigade Train.

COMMUNIST ACTIVITY.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any recent information to give the House regarding Communist activities in India; and to what extent those activities are directed from Moscow?

Mr. BENN: My information is that Communist activity in India during the last two years has been on a very minor scale.

Captain MACDONALD: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman or the Government taken to counteract that?

Mr. BENN: The Government will deal with any disorder in the appropriate way. The hon. Member asked me a question as to the extent of these activities, and to that question I have given him a reply.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Mr. BENN: I cannot give any further answer than that which I have already given.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Have any prosecutions implicating the Government of Russia taken place?

Mr. BENN: I do not know that it is possible to prosecute the Government of Russia.

ARRESTS.

Earl WINTERTON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can state the total number of arrests in British India for the periods 1st November, 1927 to 31st May, 1929 and 1st June, 1929 to 3rd December, 1930, respectively, for the following offences: sedition, incitement to violence, unlawful assembly, breaches of the salt and forest laws, and breaches of the ordinances issued by the Governor-General in council to maintain law and order?

Mr. BENN: The statistics asked for are included in an annual return by local governments, the latest available being those for the year 1929. To obtain the full statistics in the form desired by the Noble Lord, a reference to all district officers in India would be necessary, and I hesitate to impose such an additional burden on them at the present time.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the strictures which the right hon. Gentleman himself has made on the late Administration in the course of Debate, does he not think that it is only fair that he should obtain these figures, when he can do so perfectly well by applying to the local Governments?

Mr. BENN: I do not know to what strictures of mine the Noble Lord refers; perhaps he will inform me; but I think it would not be fair to ask every district officer to make a special return for this purpose at this moment.

Earl WINTERTON: In the course of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman asserted that there was a, new spirit—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. May I, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the late Administration, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would reconsider whether he cannot obtain more recent figures than those for 1929—say up to the middle of 1930?

Mr. BENN: I will gladly make every effort that is possible to obtain for the Noble Lord the information which is available. All that I ask of the Noble Lord is that he will not ask me to send special messages to district officers to make returns.

MEERUT TRIAL (PRISONERS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the 31 trade union leaders who have been under trial at Meerut since March, 1929, for activities in connection with the organisation of trade unions in India have yet been released?

Mr. BENN: As this reply is rather long, I will, if my hon. Friend will permit me, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

It is not the case that the accused in the Meerut case were arrested for activities directed towards the organisation of trades unions. The charge against them is that of conspiring together and with other persons to bring about an armed revolution to destroy the Sovereignty of His Majesty in India, and I may add that nothing is further from the intentions of the Government
of India than to place obstacles in the way of the development of trades unionism in India. The trial has been conducted strictly in accordance with the law, which requires the production of all relevant evidence both in the preliminary inquiry before a magistrate and in the Sessions trial. Owing to this requirement, and owing to the number of the accused and the volume of documentary evidence, the proceedings have been lengthy, but I am informed that they are now drawing to a conclusion. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the courts.

POISON GAS PROTOCOL.

Mr. DAY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the European nations which have not ratified or acceded to the Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of poison gases?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Eleven European States have not yet ratified or acceded to the Geneva Gas Protocol. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Have steps been taken to ascertain whether they will ratify?

Mr. DALTON: There is a large number of conventions which have not been ratified as fully as we should like. My right hon. Friend, when he was at Geneva last year, publicly expressed the view that in such cases States who signed should also ratify.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could the hon. Gentleman give us the names? It would take less time to state them in a supplementary answer.

Mr. DALTON: The names are:

Albania.
Bulgaria.
Czechoslovakia.
Estonia.
Greece.
Hungary.
Latvia.
Lithuania.
Luxemburg.
Norway.
Switzerland.

Sir W. BRASS: Have His Majesty's Government urged the other Powers to ratify?

Mr. DALTON: In a general way, His Majesty's Government are always urging other Powers to ratify conventions that they have signed. I do not know that they have brought any special pressure to bear in this particular case.

Mr. FREEMAN: When they do ratify, will they abandon the use of poison gas?

Mr. DALTON: I hope we shall abandon the use of war, which will be much more important and fundamental.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is the Moscow Government included among the signatories?

Mr. DALTON: The hon. and gallant Member will see that they are not included among the European States who have not yet ratified.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH DIPLOMATIC AND COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVES.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Soviet Government asking for the removal of the restrictions on the movements of the British commercial and diplomatic staff in Soviet Russia?

Mr. DALTON: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the hon. Gentleman say why we give full diplomatic privileges to a Power which only gives us in return very limited diplomatic privileges, and whether there is any precedent for such a reciprocal arrangement?

Mr. DALTON: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, this Government, and I think all other Governments, do reserve the right to impose restrictions, when they think fit to do so, upon the movement within their territories of diplomatic and consular officers of foreign Powers, and that right His Majesty's Government would not be prepared to abandon.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Would it not remove the ground for many of the representations in the British Press—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Eden.

PRESS TELEGRAMS (CENSORSHIP).

Captain BULLOCK: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is prepared to make representations to the Soviet Government with a view to allowing British Press representatives in Russia the same facilities for transmitting news to this country as Soviet Press representatives in Great Britain have for sending news to Russia?

Mr. DALTON: So long as the Soviet Government consider that their interests are best served by the maintenance of an official censorship on Press telegrams, no representations made by His Majesty's Government can secure the same facilities for British Press representatives in the Soviet Union as are enjoyed by Soviet Press representatives in this country. The answer is, therefore, in the negative.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain from the Soviet Government the reason for this Press censorship in time of peace, which is very unusual?

Mr. DALTON: I fancy that it is not so unusual as the hon. Member may suppose.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is there any other great Power that exercises Press censorship in this way?

Mr. DALTON: I shall be delighted to give the hon. Member an answer to that question if he will put it down.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that under Article 23 (a) of the Covenant off the League of Nations this country has undertaken to endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend; and what
steps he proposes to take to secure such conditions for workers in the Russian timber camps?

Mr. DALTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part of the question. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the replies given to a number of hon. Members on the 26th January, the 28th January, and the 9th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is this country included?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to take any further steps to fulfil the duties of this country under the Covenant?

Mr. DALTON: I have referred the right hon. Gentleman to a large number of answers setting forth very fully my right hon. Friend's views on this question. We have already taken certain steps. We have suggested to the Soviet Government that, in view of the statements which have been made, and of the doubt as to the exact degree of truth or falsity that may attach to them, an impartial inquiry would be very desirable. The Soviet Government, however, do not agree with us on that matter, and we think it unlikely that any inquiry conducted without their assistance would bring about a satisfactory result.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Are the Government not prepared to endeavour to take any other steps?

Mr. MILLS: Has not the Under-Secretary quite a number of precedents for doing nothing, in the Administration that preceded this one?

Mr. MARLEY: Has my hon. Friend's attention been called to the Report of the Whitley Commission with regard to slavery in India and Burma?

LENA GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED (ARBITRATION AWARD).

Sir W. DAVISON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House particulars of the reply of the Russian Soviet Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Government with reference
to the non-payment of the arbitral award to Lena Goldfields, Limited, as well as the result of any subsequent negotiations?

Mr. DALTON: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and gallant. Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 4th of February, discussions with the Soviet Government are still proceeding. I can, at present, add nothing to that reply.

Sir W. DAVISON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say generally whether the Soviet Government admit their liability, apart from details, under the award?

Mr. DALTON: All I can say, generally, is that these negotiations are proceeding rather slowly, which I regret.

GOLD EXPORTS.

Mr. ALBERY: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of gold that has been exported from Russia during the last 12 months; and the amount, if any, exported to this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I am unable to furnish the desired information as the exports of gold bullion and specie are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the Soviet Union. No gold bullion or specie was registered on importation into the United Kingdom as consigned from the Soviet Union during the year 1930 or during January, 1931.

Mr. ALBERY: Has the hon. Member any record of the gold exported by the Soviet Government to Germany?

Mr. SMITH: I have said that there are no records.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Captain EDEN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is. yet in a position to make any statement as to the course of negotiations between Mr. Craigie and the French Government; and whether the other Powers signatory to the London Treaty have been invited to collaborate in them?

Mr.-DALTON: My right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the First Lord of the Admiralty, left London for Paris this morning in order to continue discussions with the French.
Government on the naval question. The House will, I am sure appreciate that, in these circumstances, I am unable to make any further statement at present. The other Powers signatory to the London Treaty have been kept informed of these developments.

Captain EDEN: Can the hon. Gentleman, at least, assure us that the Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty have gone in a purely advisory capacity, and that there is no question of any further concessions or guarantees, whether explicit or implicit, by this country?

Mr. DALTON: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not press me to answer this or any other supplementary question on this subject at the present moment. If he will wait for a day or two, I am sure that we shall be able to give him a full account of all that has been done.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the United States and Japanese Governments have been officially informed of this?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir; they have been kept informed of these developments; telegrams were sent off as soon as this decision was taken.

SLAVE TRAFFIC (RED SEA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far there is international co-operation in preventing the slave trade in the Red Sea; and whether the use of seaplanes or flying boats has been considered for this service?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what nations in addition to Great Britain provide practical assistance towards the prevention of slave traffic in the Red Sea; and during how many months per year on the average since 1928 has more than one British sloop been present in Red Sea waters for this purpose?

Mr. DALTON: A considerable measure of co-operation has already been established between His Majesty's Government and the French and Italian Governments. In addition to the British
patrol, a French and an Italian warship are regularly stationed in the Red Sea. The British officials in the neighbouring territories meet their French and Italian colleagues from time to time and exchange information regarding the slave traffic across the Red Sea and the steps which are being taken to prevent it. The officers commanding His Majesty's sloops in the Red Sea also from time to time visit the ports in French and Italian territories in order to keep in touch with the local authorities. It is proposed to experiment shortly in the use of float planes. During 1929 and 1930, two British sloops were present in Red Sea waters for approximately five months in each year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will my hon. Friend look into the question of using, not float seaplanes, but, in view of the very bad weather which sometimes prevails there, large flying boats such as those which have done such admirable work on patrol?

Mr. DALTON: I think that, perhaps, that question had better be addressed to the Admiralty, who have experts who can advise as to the Suitability of different craft for this purpose.

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Does the co-operation mentioned extend to Russia?

Mr. DALTON: The hon. and gallant Member may or may not be aware that Russia has no boundary on the Red Sea.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Bullock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. REMER: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the suggestion made by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to the Government of the United: States of America for reciprocal trade whereby the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics buy cotton in exchange for the removal of the ban on timber; and if, under these circumstances, he will make representations to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics upon similar lines?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has no information as to any negotiations on the lines suggested in the first part of the question, and the second part does not, therefore, arise. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on the 12th of February last.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the United States of America, and see if there is any information on, these lines, so that we may take advantage of the example set by the United States in this respect?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that an hon. Member putting a question of this kind on the Paper is required to make himself responsible for the
statements made in it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the case with every question.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 37.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the total value of exports to Soviet Russia of United Kingdom manufactures and products, re-exports excluded, during the year 1930; and the total amount under the Export Credits Scheme guaranteed in the same period to cover United Kingdom exports to Soviet Russia, re-exports excluded?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The value of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom exported to the Soviet Union during the year ended 31st December, 1930, was £6,789,844. The total payments for such exports which were actually guaranteed under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme during the same period amounted to £4,147,631, of which its liability was approximately 60 per cent.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: How do these exports compare with those of the year before?

Mr. GILLETT: I think the increase is about 50 per cent.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we were told that, when we re-opened trade with Russia, it would solve the unemployment problem?

LEIPZIG FAIR.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 38.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is in a position to state the amount granted by the German Government towards advertising the Leipzig Fair?

Mr. GILLETT: I am informed that no grant has been made by the German Government to the Leipzig Fairs of 1931.

Mr. HACKING: How is the fair financed as far as advertising is concerned?

Mr. GILLETT: I have no information, but last year it was financed by the German Government and the year before by the Government of Saxony. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will try to find out.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. HACKING: 39.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether a Committee has yet been appointed, in pursuance of the recommendation in the Chelmsford report, to consider the question of the acquisition of a site and the erection of buildings in which the British Industries Fair may be held in fuutre years?

Mr. GILLETT: The Committee has not yet been appointed, but its composition and terms of reference are under consideration.

Mr. HACKING: When is it likely to be appointed, as we were told a fortnight or three weeks ago that a decision would very shortly be reached?

Mr. GILLETT: I think in the next fortnight.

Mr. HACKING: 40.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give any statistics in respect of the first week of the British Industries Fair?

Mr. GILLETT: The figures of attendance are as follow:
London section of the Fair (including the Cotton Textile Exhibition at the White City).


Overseas buyers
…
2,765


Home buyers
…
73,500


Public
…
20,390


(The above figures do not include the attendances at the Artificial Silk Exhibition at the Albert Hall, where turnstile reading were not taken.)
Birmingham section:


Overseas buyers
…
953


Home buyers
…
52,369


General public
…
7,152


(These figures represent the attendance at the Birmingham section up to within a short time of the closing hour Saturday.)

Mr. HACKING: Am I right in assuming that these figures constitute an increase last year's figures in every over case?

Mr. GILLETT: There has been an increase of about 10 per cent. in oversea buyers, and of nearly 20 per cent. in home buyers, but, on the other hand, there has been a decrease in the attendance of the public.

Mr. HANNON: 44.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state the number of Foreign and Colonial visitors to whom passes have been issued to visit the British Industries Fair at London and Birmingham: and if he will publish the numbers of visitors from day to day until the dose of the Fair?

Mr. GILLETT: The number of overseas buyers to whom invitations to visit the Fair have been sent by my Department is approximately 60,000. The Press are being informed day by day of the number of visitors to the Fair on the previous day and this practice will be continued until the close of the Fair.

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that a number of drapers' models which are being used for the display of goods at the British Industries Fair are of foreign manufacture; and whether, owing to the fact that models of the same nature are made in this country, he will see that in future exhibitions a regulation is made that only models of British manufacture are used?

Mr. GILLETT: The regulations of the British Industries Fair stipulate that all samples displayed by the exhibitors must have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire. I fear it would not be practicable, however, to extend this principle to materials which may be used by exhibi-
tors for the installation and display of their exhibits.

Sir F. HALL: It is really not a British Industries Fair at all then under the present Government?

Mr. GILLETT: The conditions are exactly the same as obtained under the previous Government.

Sir F. HALL: Considering that we are always receiving the reply that "it is the same as their predecessors," are we to understand that the Government accept always the policy of the previous Government?

Mr. SMITHERS: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Soviet citizens, if any, have been granted permission, up to date, to enter this country for the purpose of visiting the British Industries Fair?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Visas have been authorised to enable 19 Soviet citizens to come to this country for the purpose of visiting the British Industries Fair.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Member take steps to see that these citizens are sent back as soon as the fair is over?

EXPORT CREDITS.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: 41.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has considered the representations from the London Chamber of Commerce complaining of the present procedure by petition of right for the settlement of disputed complaints by the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and whether he is prepared to insert in future in arbitration clause in credit insurance contract's in order to facilitate the settlement of such claims?

Mr. GILLETT: I have received the representations to which the hon. Member refers and have referred them to the Export Credits Guarantee Department's Executive Committee for consideration.

Sir D. HERBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any sort of idea as to when it is likely to be arrived at?

Mr. GILLETT: No, but, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question in about 10 days, I will see if I can answer.

EMPIRE TIMBER (IMPORTS).

Mr. HANNON: 43.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if any special effort is being contemplated by his Department to develop the import of Empire timber; if any communications on this subject have passed between his Department and Dominion and Colonial Governments; and if details of available supplies of Empire soft and hard woods can be prepared for public information?

Mr. GILLETT: As the answer is rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HANNON: Is it true that the hoardings upon which Empire Marketing Board advertisements are displayed for the edification of the public are of foreign timber?

Following is the answer:

1. The Advisory Committee on Timbers at the Imperial Institute have been engaged for some years on the question of developing the use of Empire timbers in this country, and in 1928 issued a descriptive list of a selection of Empire woods recommended by them.

2. In the same year, the Imperial Economic Committee instituted an inquiry into the general question of the development of trade in Empire woods, the results of which formed the subject of their Tenth Report (Cmd. 3175, 1928). The Committee's main recommendations indicated the need for (a) the collection of full information regarding the extent of the timber resources of the Empire; (b) the investigation of the properties of Empire timbers; and (c) special measures for introducing new Empire woods into the United Kingdom.

3. Action has been taken in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Estimates of the total forest resources for a number of countries of the Empire were prepared for the Third British Empire Forestry Conference (1928), and the latest available information on this subject as regards the Dominions (except Newfoundland), India and British West Africa is contained in the volume of "Papers Presented" to that Conference.

4. With the aid of funds provided by the Empire Marketing Board, the Forest
Products Research Laboratory, at Princes Risborough, in association with the Empire Timbers Committee of the Forest Products Research Board, is investigating the properties of Empire woods, in co-operation with the Advisory Committee on Timbers at the Imperial Institute; the latter Committee, on which the Department of Overseas Trade is represented, deals with questions relating to the commercial utilisation and marketing of the timbers. The arrangements under which the work is carried out are defined in a joint statement on the Investigation of Empire Timbers issued in 1930 by the Imperial Institute, the Forest Products Research Laboratory, and the Imperial Forestry Institute, Oxford, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

5. A Committee of the Empire Marketing Board (on which the Forest Products Research Laboratory, Kew, and the Imperial Institute are represented) have in preparation a handbook describing building and decorative timbers of Empire origin available commercially.

6. With a view to the introduction of selected new Empire timbers into this market, the Imperial Institute Timbers Committee, at the invitation of the Marketing Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, recently made proposals for the import of trial consignments of hardwoods. Owing, however, to an unexpected fall in market prices, the experiment has been temporarily postponed.

7. Arising out of the work of the Advisory Committee on Timbers, the Imperial Institute is in frequent communication with Dominion and Colonial Governments. Arrangements are also made for overseas Forestry Officers, when on leave in England, to inform the Committee of the position of the timber industries of their respective countries, and of the possibilities of development.

8. The Empire Marketing Board maintain for the benefit of inquirers a register of instances in which Empire timbers can be seen to advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

EXPORTS (SCANDINAVIA).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 42.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state the total tonnage of ex-
ports of United Kingdom coal to Scandinavian countries for the five mouths ended 31st January, 1930, and for the five months ended 31st January, 1931, respectively?

Mr. GILLETT: Exports of coal from the United Kingdom to Sweden, Norway and Denmark amounted to 2,915,631 tons during the five months ended 31st January, 1930, and to 1,872,260 tons during the five months ended 31st January, 1931.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Are we to presume that it is owing to the Commission that went out to Scandinavia that there has been such a great reduction in the amount of the coal trade?

Mr. GILLETT: The report of the Commission will give the hon. Member information as to the reasons for the reduction. There is nothing further that I can add to it. He had better address a question to the Secretary of the Mines Department.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Did the British representatives inform them that, if we were prepared to buy more timber from Sweden, she would be able to purchase more coal from us?

Mr. GILLETT: I am not aware of that fact. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know, my hon. Friend will inform him.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any reason for this reduction of exports to Scandinavian countries?

Mr. GILLETT: I should advise my hon. Friend to read the report of the British Coal Delegation to Sweden, Norway and Denmark, which has just come out. I have no information beyond that.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is it not a fact—

Mr. SPEAKER: There have been enough supplementaries to this question.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. GOULD: 82.
asked the Home Secretary the number of silicosis cases reported to his Department from the Somerset coal field during the last five years, respectively, together with the number proving fatal?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to
give this information. Silicosis is not notifiable, and the only statistics of cases of silicosis collected by the Home Office are those of cases in which compensation is paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Compensation for silicosis among coalminers was first provided by the Various Industries Scheme, which came into force on the 1st February, 1929, but the returns for that year do not show any cases from the Somerset coal field. The figures for 1930 are not yet available.

Mr. GOULD: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that representations have been made to his Department and statistics given, and I should like to have those statistics, to make a comparison with other coalfields?

Mr. SHORT: I am not aware of that fact, but silicosis, as I have stated in my reply, is not notifiable.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORK SCHEMES.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any proposals to make to the House or otherwise to avoid the lag between the amount of the labour value of unemployment schemes approved in principle and the labour value of the schemes that have actually been put in operation?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): As the Prime Minister explained in the Debate on 12th February, substantial progress has been made in the last few months in reducing the margin between the value of schemes approved in principle and the value of schemes in operation, and efforts to that end are being continued. My right hon. Friend does not at present foresee the necessity for any new measures for this purpose.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the Prime Minister consulting the Liberal Yellow Book, and the proposals that the Liberal party have made?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, he seems to he a great deal better acquainted with the Yellow Book than I am.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are we to understand that substantial progress has been made?

TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT.

Mr. McSHANE: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can give an analysis by trades of the number of people receiving transitional benefit or an approximate estimate of the numbers in the chief trades?

The PARLIAMENTARY-SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): As the reply includes a table of figures I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT:

Following is the statement:

The latest date for which an industrial analysis of the numbers on transitional benefit is available is 24th November, 1930. The following table gives estimated figures in respect of insured persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at that date whose claims had been authorised for transitional benefit:

Industry. Men.
Estimated Number.


Coalmining
62,300


Building and Public Works Contracting
43,100


Engineering industries and manufacture and repair of motor vehicles, cycles and aircraft
26,000


Distributive Trades
23,900


Transport and Communication
22,000


Textile Industries
15,300


Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
14,900


Metal Trades
10,100


Iron and Steel
8,900


All other industries
71,800


Total
298,300


Women.



Cotton
23,200


Woollen and worsted
4,200


Textile Industries (other than cotton, woolen and worsted)
6,200


Distributive Trades
7,300


Clothing Trades
3,900


Food, drink and tobacco
3,800


Metal manufacture and metal trades
3,400


All other industries
15,000


Total
67,000

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour who were the members of the Committee appointed by the International Labour Conference at Geneva last October to examine into the unemployment question; what were the terms of reference; on what date was it constituted; whether it has reported; and, if so, on what date?

Mr. LAWSON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

This Committee was appointed to undertake a thorough study of the unemployment problem with a view to expressing an opinion on the means of combating the principal causes of the unemployment from which so many workers are now suffering.

The members of the Committee are:

Governments:

Mr. Weigert (Germany); substitute, Mr. Laemmle.
Mr. Hilton (Great Britain).
Mr. de Michelis (Italy).
Mr. Yoshisaka (Japan).

Employers:

Mr. Cort van der Linden (Netherlands).
Mr. Lambert-Ribot (France).
Mr. Olivetti (Italy).
Mr. Vogel (Germany).

Substitutes:

Mr. Curcin (Yugoslavia).
Mr. Forbes Watson (Great Britain).
Mr. Gérard (Belgium).
Mr. Miyajima (Japan).

Workers:

Mr. Jouhaux (France).
Mr. Müller (Germany).
Mr. Poulton (Great Britain).
Mr. Schürch (Switzerland).

Substitutes:

Mr. Mertens (Belgium).
Mr. Johanson (Sweden).

I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the report presented by the Committee on 31st January to the Governing Body of the International Labour Office.

EX-GOVERNORS (SPEECHES).

Major WOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding cases, to which his attention has been drawn, where speeches on current politics have been made by ex-Governors immediately after their retirement from office; and whether he will consider the advisability, in making future appointments to Governorships, of prescribing that an interval should elapse between a Governor's retirement and his re-engaging in party politics?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been drawn to any action of this kind by any ex-Governor.

BROADCASTING (BUDGET SPEECH).

Mr. DAY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take an opportunity of consulting the leaders of the Opposition parties of this House for the purpose of considering the granting of facilities for having a sound-film made of a portion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forthcoming Budget speech?

Mr. McKINLAY: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General if he proposes to make arrangements for broadcasting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement on Budget day?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: From consultations which took place last year it appeared that the suggestion that the Budget Speech should be broadcast did not commend itself to any considerable section of the House, and my right hon. Friend is not aware of any change of circumstances or of opinion since then. He doubts whether the making of a sound film of part of the speech would be more acceptable than broadcasting.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is far more important that the Budget should produce sound economy than a sound film?

IRISH FREE STATE CONSTITUTION ACT.

Sir W. DAVISON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the proposal to amend the Irish Free State Constitution Act by removing
the guarantee of the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am not prepared at this stage to indicate the attitude which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom might find it necessary to adopt in relation to projected legislation of the provisions of which they are not at present aware.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right of appeal to the Privy Council is one of the fundamental conditions under the Anglo-Irish Treaty for the protection of the Southern Irish Loyalists, and can he not assure the House that nothing will be done by the British Government to do away with that safeguard?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not only aware of it, but I have made quite clear, publicly and privately, the importance of the right of appeal. But the question put to me is, What action the Government propose to take, and my answer is that it would be unwise to announce any action when the legislation is not even before us.

MALTA (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. LONGDEN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the present constitutional situation in Malta?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: His Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of a Royal Commission to report with regard to the political situation in Malta.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am glad to hear that this decision of His Majesty's Government meets with enthusiastic support from hon. Members opposite. The terms of reference to the Commissioners will be as follows:
To visit Malta and consider the existing political situation in the Island; and to make such recommendations as may seem to them desirable as to the steps which should be taken to deal with it, with special reference to the possibility of re-establishing constitutional government.
The personnel of the Commission will be announced shortly.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Will that mean that the present deputation which is over from Malta will not be received by the representatives of the Government?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That certainly does not arise out of the question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to speak for the Prime Minister? Will he receive that deputation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), that the question did not arise then, and, following that, I asked if he would receive a deputation. Surely that was in order and did arise. Let him answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Frederick Hall.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES, SUFFOLK.

Mr. GRANVILLE: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will refer back the decision of the Suffolk Agricultural Wages Committee to reduce the minimum weekly wage of male workers of 21 years and over to 28s.?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The reduced minimum rates proposed by the Suffolk Agricultural Wages Committee cannot be fixed until after the expiration of the statutory period during which objections may be lodged. Consequently the question as to whether I should exercise my power under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act to require the Committee to reconsider the rates cannot be determined until, and unless the Committee, after considering objections, decide to alter the rates.

Mr. GRANVILLE: As it is the intention of the Government to settle men on the land, will they take steps to preserve the standard of living of those already engaged on the soil?

Dr. ADDISON: I have given the hon. Gentleman an answer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to protect the agricultural labourers from the threatened reduction in wages now?

Dr. ADDISON: I am doing whatever is possible in the matter.

MARKETING.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, under the Agricultural Marketing Bill, producers will be required to purchase agricultural requisites, such as feeding stuffs, from a marketing board, or whether they will be free to purchase elsewhere?

Dr. ADDISON: Under the Agricultural Marketing Bill, producers cannot be required to purchase agricultural requisites, such as feeding stuffs, from a marketing board. I am glad of the opportunity to deny a grossly inaccurate statement to the contrary which forms part of a circular, issued by the National Poultry Council, soliciting the opposition to the Bill of producers and corn merchants.

FRANCE AND GERMANY (WORKING CONDITIONS).

Mr. DAY: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statistics and can state the latest average working hours and wages of agricultural workers in France and Germany, respectively?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no statistics regarding the hours of work in those two countries, but I am sending my hon. Friend such particulars as I have respecting agricultural wages.

BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. BARNES: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will issue a. statement showing, for the years ended 31st March, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930, the amount paid under the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1923, to each firm in receipt of the subsidy, stated separately, together with its net profits and the amounts put to reserve, and depreciation accounts for each of the specified years?

Dr. ADDISON: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT statements showing the beet-sugar subsidy paid and the reserves provided and the depreciations written off by each of the companies. The balance sheets do not disclose the net profits for each year's working, and I am unable to furnish this information.

Following are the statements:

Statement 1.


AMOUNT of Subsidy paid to Beet Sugar Companies during each year ended 31st March, 1926 to 1930, respectively.


Company.
Year ended 31st March


1926.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


English Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
360,872
13
10
505,251
1
5
547,221
0
4
374,661
13
3
488,230
0
3


Home Grown Sugar, Limited
103,537
0
0
270,127
11
4
188,715
10
4
70,334
7
1
139,596
17
2


Ely Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
191,733
12
7
536,409
15
9
566,910
10
4
407,984
15
9
504,044
11
8


Ipswich Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
60,979
11
2
402,133
3
10
326,499
10
10
175,048
19
2
265,601
11
0


King's Lynn Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
—
—
120,499
6
11
175,624
4
11
294,701
17
2


Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
151,289
8
8
387,572
5
10
430,357
10
2
234,011
7
0
400,681
16
4


2nd Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
—
279,209
7
6
502,827
11
11
174,345
2
6
293,378
0
5


West Midland Sugar Company, Limited
63,163
15
2
149,373
6
1
250,998
0
9
147,818
17
4
186,247
1
2


United Sugar Company, Limited
80,140
1
6
383,479
13
0
432,807
1
6
354,625
18
5
463,249
6
3


British Sugar Manufacturers, Limited
50,268
10
3
110,376
13
11
194,739
1
10
133,456
13
3
171,263
2
6


Central Sugar Company, Limited
—
183,957
6
4
212,691
19
6
174,308
13
2
252,569
15
11


Yorkshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
123,722
4
2
102,112
9
2
183,014
16
9


Shropshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
139,495
15
7
146,212
19
6
227,986
7
9


Lincolnshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
224,178
13
2
106,850
17
9
204,351
15
3


2nd Lincolnshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
—
72,682
16
3
148,134
2
11


Sugar Beet and Crop Driers, Limited
—
—
—
4,159
10
0
6,678
14
5


Orchard Sugar Company, Limited
4,105
5
10
17,968
10
1
47,585
17
8
—
—


Totals
£1,066,089
19
0
£3,225,858
15
1
£4,309,259
15
0
£2,854,239
4
6
£4,229,729
16
11

Statement 2.


STATEMENT of the Reserves of Beet Sugar Companies as standing in the Balance Sheets as at 31st March, 1926 to 1930, respectively.


Company.
Year ended 31st March


1926.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


English Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
143,719
15
4
299,787
1
11
406,832
14
0
410,640
0
7
460,958
5
2


Home Grown Sugar, Limited
63,692
8
2
121,354
3
11
147,535
18
10
131,009
7
10
139,697
8
6


Ely Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
6,065
17
6
96,489
16
2
142,701
8
10
201,684
9
7
271,924
16
6


Ipswich Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
1,443
1
0
91,334
14
7
153,891
0
6
154,531
8
8
165,927
10
8


King's Lynn Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
—
—
713
12
8
1,550
2
7
8,337
7
9


Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
—
—
—
—
—


West Midland Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
—
35,000
0
0
35,000
0
0


Second Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
—
—
—
—
—


United Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
50,000
0
0
100,000
0
0
100,000
0
0


British Sugar Manufacturers, Limited
—
—
—
—
—


Central Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
—
—
40,000
0
0


Yorkshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
—
—
—


Shropshire Beet Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
—
—
—


Lincolnshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
42,200
0
0
42,200
0
0
42,200
0
0


Second Lincolnshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
—
—
—


Orchard Sugar Company, Limited
—
243
4
0
—
—
—


Totals
£214,921
2
0
£609,209
0
7
£943,874
14
10
£1,076,615
9
3
£1,264,045
8
7

Statement 3.


STATEMENT of the amounts written off in depreciation by Beet Sugar Companies in each of the years ended 31st March, 1926 to 1930, respectively.


Company.
Year ended 31st March


1926.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


English Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
83,016
15
3
60,674
13
0
85,401
0
0
25,000
0
0
36,623
1
1


Home Grown Sugar, Limited
23,359
0
0
23,379
0
0
24,444
0
0
25,518
0
0
25,567
0
0


Ely Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
30,941
16
8
98,634
4
5
138,520
5
10
102,591
11
1
100,000
0
0


Ipswich Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
3,968
11
6
96,112
9
9
52,368
17
6
20,000
0
0
35,000
0
0


King's Lynn Beet Sugar Factory, Limited
—
—
37,292
17
9
20,000
0
0
42,000
0
0


Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
—
46,000
0
0
100,000
0
0
20,000
0
0
47,000
0
0


2nd Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited
—
17,500
0
0
122,500
0
0
—
35,000
0
0


West Midland Sugar Company, Limited
—
15,000
0
0
56,000
0
0
19,000
0
0
25,000
0
0


United Sugar Company, Limited
—
44,300
0
0
30,000
0
0
30,000
0
0
67,850
17
6


British Sugar Manufacturers, Limited
11,269
0
3
22,558
17
7
—
27,644
16
11
30,000
0
0


Central Sugar Company, Limited
—
23,450
0
0
21,885
0
0
20,650
0
0
65,000
0
0


Yorkshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
20,000
0
0
9,000
0
0
15,000
0
0


Shropshire Beet Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
10,000
0
0
15,000
0
0
65,000
0
0


Lincolnshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
25,000
0
0
11,000
0
0
16,200
0
0


2nd Lincolnshire Sugar Company, Limited
—
—
—
—
27,200
0
0


Total
£152,555
3
8
£447,609
4
9
£723,412
1
1
£345,404
8
0
£632,440
18
7

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture which are the principal counties in which sugar-beet is produced; what was the total area in those counties under root-crops in the year prior to the commencement of the beet-sugar subsidy; and what was the area under sugar-beet and the area under other root-crops in the latest year for which information is available?

Dr. ADDISON: Nearly 70 per cent. of the sugar-beet acreage returned in June, 1930, was in Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Isle of Ely and Yorkshire. The total acreage under roots (excluding potatoes) in the-se counties in 1924 was 497,499 acres, of which 18,530 acres were devoted to sugar-beet. In June, 1930, the total acreage under sugar-beet in these counties was 239,575 acres, and the acreage under other roots (excluding potatoes) was 394,882 acres.

Sir H. SAMUEL: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total quantity of sugar produced from British sugar beet in the latest year for which information is available; the average market price of the sugar; the total value of the crop; and the sum paid in subsidy from the Exchequer in that year?

Dr. ADDISON: The figures for the manufacturing campaign 1929–30, which is the latest period for which complete information is available, are:


Total production of sugar (cwts.)
5,841,489


Estimated average wholesale price per cwt. of sugar
20s. 8d.


Total value of the beet crop
£5,301,000


Total subsidy paid
£4,233,776

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now state whether all the goods which he has arranged to purchase out of the Supplementary Estimate granted on 16th December are of British origin?

Dr. ADDISON: The vegetable seeds will be British grown except a few varieties which for climatic reasons cannot be grown to the required standard in this country. The seed potatoes will be drawn mainly from Scotland. The artificial manures will all be supplied by
British firms, but some of them include ingredients, such as potash, which must of necessity be imported. The implements will be of British materials and manufacture throughout.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in regard to the fraction of the manure which he says is not of British origin, there is any possibility of getting it from within the Empire?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why potatoes should come from Scotland when Lincolnshire has the best potatoes in the country?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yon never get any from Scotland. It is Scotch whisky of which you are the judges.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Barnes. [Interruption.] Really, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) must not interrupt almost every question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHANNEL ISLANDS.

Mr. EVERARD: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General when the telephone service between England and the Channel Islands will be completed; which of the islands are included in the scheme; and what will be the cost of a call from London to Jersey?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I hope to open a public telephone service between most of the principal towns in Great Britain and the towns of St. Peter Port in Guernsey and St. Helier in Jersey towards the end of March. Extensions of the service to other places will be effected as soon as possible. The charge proposed for a three-minute call from London to Jersey is 5s. 9d. between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m., 4s. 3d. between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. and 3s. between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.

CLERICAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. BOWEN: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction prevailing in his Department because of the non-appointment to the
clerical grade of the 270 Post Office clerks who remain from the 1926 competitive examination; and whether, having regard to his partial recognition of the case by securing 50 clerical appointments for the number of officers originally available, he will recommend that the appointment of the 270 men as clerical officers would be justified?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which my hon. Friend gave last Tuesday. While I am not without sympathy for the disappointed competitors, I cannot see my way to recommend any further concession.

Mr. BOWEN: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment of the House on the earliest possible occasion.

INDIA AIR MAIL.

Colonel Sir VANSITTART BOWATER: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the delay in delivering the air mail from India and the fact that on many occasions the mail delivered in the ordinary way is delivered quicker than by the more expensive air route, whether he will take all possible steps to accelerate the deliveries by air?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The incoming Indian air mail has been delayed on several occasions this winter owing to exceptionally bad weather conditions, particularly in the Mediterranean, but I am not aware of any instance in which the mail has taken as long or longer in transit than the ordinary mail. The hon. Member will appreciate that the posting days in India for the air and ordinary routes are not the same, but if he will be good enough to let me have particulars of the specific delays he has in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Sir V. BOWATER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although the mail usually arrives on the Wednesday, it is not delivered until the Friday, which does not give time for a reply to be sent by the mail which leaves on Monday?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not think that the hon. Member's facts are accurate.

Sir V. BOWATER: If I send the hon. Gentleman particulars, will he go into the matter?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: indicated assent
.

Sir V. BOWATER: I shall be glad to do so.

BOTANIC GARDENS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 68.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider setting up an independent committee comprising representatives of the various interested bodies to consider the future of the Botanic Gardens, and to advise the Government accordingly?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): As I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member on more than one occasion, this question is under consideration by my Department. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the establishment of such a committee as is suggested.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the people who take the most interest in the Botanic Gardens should have some voice in regard to their future?

Mr. LANSBURY: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that all interests will be considered, especially the public interests.

Sir F. HALL: Will nothing be definitely decided until the matter has been brought before the House?

Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot give that assurance, but the House of Commons will be kept informed in the ordinary way.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, MACCLESFIELD.

Mr. BOWEN: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been drawn to the circumstances involved in the lock-out of nearly 50 men and 600 women and girls by Messrs. Neckwear, Limited, Macclesfield, in which company the English Sewing Cotton Company hold the controlling interest; whether she is aware that Messrs. Neckwear, Limited, on the 8th October, 1930, seceded
from the Macclesfield Silk Trade Employers' Association and immediately posted notices of new terms of service to the workpeople without negotiation; that Messrs. Neckwear, Limited, have subsequently refused civic and other offers of mediation and negotiation; and whether, seeing that the firm is now advertising for other workers and is still refusing to negotiate either with the employers' association or the trade union, she will take steps to bring about negotiations with a view to the ending of the difficulty and a full return to work?

Mr. LAWSON: I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. I regret that the agreement recently made in the silk industry has not resulted in a settlement of this dispute. My Department, however, will continue to make all possible efforts to assist towards an amicable settlement.

CEMENT WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. ALBERY: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour if she can give any comparative figures regarding the wages paid to cement workers in Belgium and in this country?

Mr. LAWSON: For Belgium, the latest available information relates to 1929, when the rates of wages were reported as varying between 36 and 52 francs per day of eight hours, exclusive of family allowances which were paid in addition. Some workers on piece work were stated to earn higher amounts. It is understood that increases in wage rates have been granted in some districts since 1929. For Great Britain, the only information in my possession relates to the actual earnings of all classes of workpeople in the industry in the week ended 27th October, 1928, which, according to returns supplied to the Ministry of Labour, averaged 61s. 5d., inclusive of the effect of short time and of any overtime worked.

Mr. ALBERY: Will the hon. Member try to get some really comparative figures in regard to this class of work?

Mr. LAWSON: We have given the hon. Member the latest figures at our dis-
posal, but, if there are other facts that he desires to know, we shall be pleased to do what we can in the matter.

Mr. HANNON: Is it really a fact that the hon. Member's Department cannot get later information than the Belgian figures for 1929 and our own country for 1928?

HOUSING.

Mr. HURD: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether, according to information in his Department, it is now possible to build houses in typical rural districts for £300 per house to be let at 2s. 6d. a week?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): A house erected by a local authority in an agricultural parish at an inclusive cost of £300 can be let for 2s. 6d. a week exclusive of rates, but although some authorities have succeeded in building for £300 or less the average price in rural districts is still somewhat higher.

Mr. HURD: Can the hon. Lady say how much higher?

Miss LAWRENCE: I am afraid that I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Lady communicate the fact that she has given to me to the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters)?

TANGANYIKA (PANGANI FALLS).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position in regard to the scheme in prospect to make use of the Pangani falls?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): An agreement providing for the development of the falls was executed last month between the Tanganyika Government and Power Securities Corporation Limited, under which power and light will be made available within five years for a considerable area, subject to the payment of an annual rent to the local Government and to fixed maximum rates of charge.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the hon. Member say whether the Government have provided any credit for this scheme?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I am having a copy of the agreement placed in the Library, so that the hon. and gallant Member can see it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope that this is not a case where the Government are handing any money over to some private company which is going to exploit the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION (SIZE OF CLASSES).

Miss LEE: 77 and 79.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the average size of classes in Scottish elementary schools on June, 1929, and on the latest date for which figures are available;
(2) the numbers and percentage of classes in Scottish elementary schools with 40 or more pupils on June, 1929, and on the latest date for which figures are available?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): As was explained to the hon. Member on 3rd December, 1929, the particulars for June of that year are not available. On 31st October, 1930, the latest date for which figures are available, the average size of classes in Scottish primary schools, including advanced divisions in such schools, was 36.9 on the basis of the number of children on the roll. On the same date the number of classes with more than 40 pupils on the roll was 8,014, or 45.2 per cent. of the total of classes in such schools.

Miss LEE: Can the Secretary of State indicate whether in the last 18 months there has been any reduction in the size of classes or in the number over 40, as the one figure that has been given is not very helpful?

Mr. ADAMSON: I must ask the hon. Member to put that question on the Paper.

RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION.

Miss LEE: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Rivers Pollution Prevention Committee is expected to report; and what steps, if any, have been taken to cleanse
the part of the River Clyde flowing through Lanarkshire?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The first report of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention has just bean issued. The committee have not yet undertaken an examination of the River Clyde, and I am not in a position therefore to reply to the latter part of my bon. Friend's question further than to refer her to the opinion of the committee expressed in paragraph 29 (4) of their report as to the administration of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts by the county council of Lanarkshire.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask whether the Clyde is as "red" as it was?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is not the Clyde that is "red"; it is the representatives of the Clyde. Hon. Members would like to see them get sacked, but they will be here when the rest of you have gone.

SUBVERSIVE SPEECHES (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. WILLIAM HENDERSON: 83.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons have been prosecuted and convicted, respectively, during the last five years, for public utterances calculated to incite breaches of the peace?

Mr. SHORT: There are no figures available. If my hon. Friend will write explaining more fully what information he desires, my right hon. Friend will see whether it can be supplied?

Mr. HENDERSON: Does the hon. Member propose to take any action arising out of a public utterance of this character by the ex-Lord Chancellor?

Mr. SHORT: That is a question which should be addressed to the Attorney-General.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS.

Mr. ISAACS: 84.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now make a definite statement as to the intentions of the Government with respect to legislation intended to amend the Sunday Observance Act of 1780 so far as entertainments are concerned, in order to give equal treatment to all forms of entertainment under equal conditions?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which he gave on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) and the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking).

Mr. ISAACS: May I ask the Under-Secretary when he is likely to be in a position to give a reply?

Mr. SHORT: I can add nothing to the answer.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE).

Sir K. WOOD: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any statement as to the composition and terms of reference of the committee to make recommendations for effecting reductions in national expenditure?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister the composition of the new economy committee; whether its proceedings will be public; and whether those Departments whose work is under review will be represented at the investigations?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the leaders of the opposition parties on this question.

LAND TAXATION (UNEARNED INCREMENT).

Sir K. WOOD: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state when he intends to submit proposals to the House with the object of taxing unearned increment accruing to land before development takes place?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.

Sir K. WOOD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some glad tidings to this House on this particular matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the House is getting rather tired of the right hon. Gentleman's inane attempts at sarcasm.

DOUBLE TAXATION (RELIEF).

Major NATHAN: 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements have been made with the Government of any foreign State with a view to the granting of relief from double taxation as mentioned in Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930; and whether His Majesty in Council has made or is expected to make any such declaration as is referred to in that Section?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Progress has been made towards the conclusion of agreements with certain countries under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930, but I am not yet in a position to say when the Declarations in Council envisaged by that Section may be expected.

Major NATHAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman feels that he can properly give the names of those countries with whom these negotiations are taking place?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There are two or three of them, but I prefer not to mention them at the moment.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TYPEWRITERS).

Captain WATERHOUSE: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount expended by Government Departments on office typewriting machines during the year ended April, 1930; the amount of expenditure estimated for the current year; and what percentage of machines in each case were manufactured in the British Isles?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr.Pethick-Lawrence): The amount expended by the Stationery Office on office typewriting machines for Government Departments during the year ended April, 1930, was £15,335. The estimated expenditure for the current year is £41,000. Machines manufactured in the British Isles account for 93 per cent. and 95 per cent. respectively of these amounts.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir Thomas Walker Hobart Inskip, C.B.E., K.C., for County of Hants (Fareham Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night, how far he proposes to proceed with the business after Eleven o'Clock?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The purpose of the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule is to ensure the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (No.2) Bill.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: And no other business?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Not after that. Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this clay's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Snowden.]

The House divided: Ayes,222; Noes,184.

Division No. 164.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Melville, Sir James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Middleton, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mills, J. E.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.


Arnott, John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, Frederick


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Ayles, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hardle, George D.
Mort, D. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Muff, G.


Barr, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Nathan, Major H. L.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Benson, G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Herriotts, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Perry, S. F.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bromley, J.
Hollins, A.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Pole, Major D. G.


Brothers, M.
Horrabin, J. F.
Potts, John S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Price, M. P.


Burgess, F. G.
Isaacs, George
Pybus, Percy John


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Chater, Daniel
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Church, Major A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kinley, J.
Rowson, Guy


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cowan, D. M.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sanders, W. S.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sandham, E.


Daggar, George
Lathan, G.
Sawyer, G. F.


Dallas, George
Law, A (Rossendale)
Scott, James


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Devlin, Joseph
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shillaker, J. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shinwell, E


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Logan, David Gilbert
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Freeman, Peter
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gill, T. H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Snell, Harry


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Sorensen, R.


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Granville, E.
Marshall, Fred
Stephen, Campbell


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton. James
Strauss, G. R.


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Vaughan, David
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Viant, S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Tillett, Ben
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Tinker, John Joseph
Watkins, F. C.
Wise, E. F.


Toole, Joseph
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Tout, W. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)



Townend, A. E.
West, F. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Westwood, Joseph
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson. Major A. J.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrst'ld)


Alntworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ferguson, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astor, Viscountess
Fermoy, Lord
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atholl, Duchess of
Fielden, E. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Atkinson, C.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balllie-Hamliton. Hon. Charles W.
Ford. Sir P. J.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Balniel, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beaumont. M. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ross, Ronald D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gower, Sir Robert
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Berry, Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Salmon, Major I.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Grenfell. Edward C. (City of London)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bird, Ernest Roy
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Savery, S. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Simms, Major-General J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Skelton, A. N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C)


Boyce, Leslie
Hanbury, C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bracken, B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smithers, Waldron


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerset, Thomas


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig -Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stewart. W. J. (Belfast, South)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Iveagh, Countess of
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Sir F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Lamb, Sir [...]. O
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Train, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leighton. Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Chapman, Sir S.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Christie, J. A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Wayland, Sir William A.


Colman. N. C. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Withers, Sir John James


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mitchell-Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Womersley, W. J.


Dairympte-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Morrison. W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Muirhead, A. J.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Eden, Captain Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had
discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Major Long; and had appointed in substitution: Major Colfox.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Agricultural Marketing Bill): Mr. Granville; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Kedward.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY
ESTIMATE, 1930.

CLASS VII.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £85,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health and the Department of Health for Scotland).

4.0 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): This is a Supplementary Estimate amounting to £85,000, and it is for purposes connected with Employment Exchanges and Labour Ministry work during the current year. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there was a bulk cut in the original gross estimate of £38,000. Hon. Members will find that set out in the White Paper, on page 16. That £38,000 cut is mutual, I think, to nearly all the items, and it was made for the purpose of preventing under-spending. Last year I was rather severely taken to task because of under-spending. Fortunately for myself, I shall not be in that position this year. We estimated rather too closely, and we did not take into account the fact that we would be able to expedite the work. Therefore, instead of the cut being necessary, we are obliged to come for an extra amount. But I call attention to the fact, in order that the Committee may understand that the work of estimating for the erection of Employment Exchanges is not quite so simple as it appears when you see it on paper. Very often it takes a long time to negotiate the site, and then there is often great difficulty with the local authorities as to whether it is a proper site, whether it is the best available and so on. Then we have to agree with the Ministry of
Labour as to what demands the Ministry may have, and, finally, we have to settle with the Treasury, who have the last word on the subject.
During the past year, as I say, we have been able to expedite the completion and the commencement of Employment Exchanges which have been needed for a considerable number of years. In addition, it will be found that there is a big sum—25,0000—extra for rents. That is entirely due to the fact that we have had an abnormal increase in the number of the unemployed. The ordinary provision of Employment Exchanges is not to deal with 2,500,000 unemployed, but with very much less than half that figure. Consequently, the very large increase of unemployed has caused us to take temporary buildings in different parts of the various towns affected, and that accounts for the biggish sum of £25,000. The maintenance and repairs are partly due to that, as also is furniture, because, obviously, if you take temporary premises, you need furniture with which to equip them. I should like to say in that respect that I think the officials, both of the Ministry of Labour and of this Department, are to be congratulated upon the manner in which they have been able to provide, perhaps not first-class accommodation, but, at least, adequate and decent accommodation during this period of rush. I can only hope that, as the days go, and go quickly, too, the numbers to be dealt with will be very considerably reduced. Until that is so, I think the Committee will agree that we must make provision, and the provision we have made is the most economical in the circumstances. As for the new buildings, they are very largely a continuing programme that has been laid down since 1927.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: a thank the right hon. Member for his explanation. There are one or two points about which, I hope, he will give us some information. With regard to the super-cut, I have in my hand the original Estimate of 1930–31, and on page 15 I see that £38,000 is mentioned as being deducted "for services which may not be carried out during the year." I want to know how this super-cut was arrived at in the first instance, because in this case the demand had been very much too large.

Mr. LANSBURY: I can explain that right away. We discussed this question last year. The £38,000 bears no actual relationship to any particular item. It is on the total figure. It is estimated by those who estimate the requirements, that, taking them all through, one after the other, in all probability a certain amount may possibly be under-spent, and if it be asked, "Did you reckon it on new works entirely?", I am bound to say "No." But, in this case, it does so happen that the bulk of the expenditure is on new works, and also the extra £10,000 is required for new works. That is because it has been possible to expedite the acquirement of sites. Further, a number of sites which were on the point of being available last year, and for which provision was made in last year's Estimates, were not quite ready before 31st March last.

Sir A. POWNALL: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Anyone who has served for a number of years on the Public Accounts Committee must be in sympathy with the super-cut, upon which the Office of Works is to be congratulated. Now that they can get so near to the figures, I hope that when they are framing their figures for the ensuing financial year they will bear in mind the experience of this year, and save the necessity of putting back £38,000 which, in the first instance, they have deducted. One further point. Under Item A, New Works, Alterations, Additions and Purchases, there is an extra £10,000. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman shows anywhere where that £10,000 is being mainly spent. I have the original figures in my hand, and they show a very considerable number of Employment Exchanges up and down the country, but if he can give us some idea as to where the extra £10,000 is going, it will be helpful.
As regards rents, quite frankly, in view of the very large increase in unemployment, I think that the country has got out very well indeed to have only an extra £25,000 for rents under item E—a. total of £161,000, instead of £136,000. I forget the exact proportion the unemployed now bears to what it was when the Estimates were framed about a year ago, but, anyhow, an increase of 20 per cent., or something of that sort, is, in view of the appalling increase in unemployment in the last year or 15 months,
relatively a very small figure, and I make no complaint at all with regard to that. I also appreciate the very great difficulties which the staff must have had in many cases where it was not possible to give the extra accommodation which they ought to have, and the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the staff of the Ministry of Labour in carrying on with the live register without extra accommodation. Therefore, I make no complaint at all about the £25,000.

Mr. MARCH: I would like to ask, what is going to happen to the vast number of men and women who were in the habit of registering at the Employment Exchange in the East India Dock Road, near the iron brige? The demolition of the old Exchange was started, and there is no registration taking place. A number of people who registered there came from Canning Town, while others came from a large area round Bromley. I expect that that is one of the reasons why there must be some temporary buildings taken for registration. There was always complaints of the long distances many people had to come to register, and also the inconvenience in registering. I would like to know what arrangements are being made for the convenience of those men and women who used to register at that place.

Mr. CULVERWELL: The Committee, I think, enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuous explanation of the increase in the Estimate. Apparently, he first knocked off £38,000, and now he more that doubles the amount he knocked off. That, certainly, impresses me as a way, first of all, of pleasing the House, and then of alarming the House. I want to ask, what is the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman is estimating for the requirements of the Employment Exchanges? On what figure of unemployment is the Minister of Labour arranging for accommodation, because the Committee sympathises with the right hon. Gentleman in the tremendous growth of unemployment which has taken place since he took office. While, I presume, we are not allowed this afternoon to discuss the reason for that increase, as the right hon. Member did touch upon that question, I feel that I have a right to say something about it. When the right hon. Gentleman assumed office, the figure of unemployment was
somewhere round 1,000,000; now it is something over 2,500,000, and I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman anticipates that the unemployment will remain at the higher level under the Socialist Government, or will revert to the lower level which it assumed under the late Conservative administration? The volume of unemployment, I presume, will largely dictate the requirements of the Employment Exchanges and the accommodation for the unemployed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we cannot discuss that point. It would open up too wide a Debate. The question before the Committee is whether this sum shall or shall not be granted for the purposes stipulated.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I take it, Mr. Dunnico, that it would be in order to ask the Minister whether, having regard to the increase in the number of unemployed, he thinks that this provision is sufficient, and also whether he thinks there is any likelihood of a further increase in the number of unemployed. I think those points are of importance to the Committee in arriving at a decision as to whether adequate provision is being made by this Estimate or not.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is a well-known practice in regard to Supplementary Estimates, and it has been frequently ruled from the Chair, that where a Supplementary Estimate is of such magnitude as to constitute a considerable percentage of the original Estimate, a wider latitude should be allowed in discussion than in other cases. The well-known case of the Uganda Railway is the precedent in regard to all these matters, and I call attention to the fact that the present Supplementary Estimate is for £85,000, as compared with a total original Estimate of £540,000. That seems to constitute a considerable percentage of the original Estimate, and, I submit, that in accordance with practice, the discussion should be allowed to have a wider scope than is usual in the case of Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. LANSBURY: I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact, which he seems to have overlooked, that the
Supplementary Estimate includes the £38,000 which was originally estimated for but was taken out and that, as regards that sum, we are only restoring our original Estimate. May I also point out that hon. Gentlemen opposite, last year used arguments exactly contrary to those which are now being advanced.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As regards the point of Order which has been raised, where there is an entirely new Vote, covering some service not provided for in the original Estimate, it is customary to allow a fairly wide latitude in debate, and, also if the sum asked for in the Supplementary Estimate is out of all proportion to the sum of the original Estimate, considerable scope is allowed in discussion. But I do not agree that those conditions apply to this Supplementary Estimate, and I think we ought to keep to the ordinary rule on this occasion.

Sir K. WOOD: May I have an answer on the particular point which I raised?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman values the opinion of the Minister on that point, he is entitled to ask for it.

Sir K. WOOD: I have the very highest regard for the Minister's opinion.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I wish to be quite clear on this point. You, Mr. Dunnico, have ruled that this Supplementary Estimate is not of sufficient magnitude to justify its being treated as any exception to the general rule, and that it does not introduce any new features. But surely we shall be within the rules of order in drawing attention to the reasons which have induced the Government to bring forward the Supplementary Estimate and also the reason why the amount required has assumed such proportions. That consideration is vital to the discussion of whether this further sum should be granted or not.

Major COLFOX: Is not the Committee entitled to discuss the causes which make this Estimate necessary. Unless we are entitled to discuss those causes, and the question of whether this amount is likely to be sufficient, or more than sufficient, or insufficient, then the Debate would seem to have no point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee is certainly entitled to ascertain
from the Minister what is the cause of the excess over the original Estimate, but it cannot discuss the policy or the lack of policy which is behind the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. CULVERWELL: It is the lack of policy which I wish to discuss.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But I must remind the hon. Gentleman that I have already ruled that he cannot discuss either policy or lack of policy.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Perhaps there is not very much policy to discuss, but, at any rate, what I am asking the right hon. Gentleman is, on what basis is he estimating the requirements of the Department as regards Employment Exchange accommodation? I was drawing attention to the fact that under the late Conservative administration less accommodation was necessary than is necessary under a Socialist Government, and I think the evidence of the last two years of Socialist Government has shown that—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now entering upon a line of argument which must inevitably result in a discussion of policy and I have already ruled that policy cannot be discussed on this estimate.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I wish to know on what basis we are to estimate future requirements in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman, when he first came into office, presumably estimated on a basis of about 1,000,000 unemployed, but that figure has now risen to 2,500,000. I wish to know whether that figure is to be taken as normal or whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it likely that we may revert to the figure of about 1,000,000 which existed under the Conservative administration. I would not dream of arguing that the total is more likely to rise than to decrease under this Government, but the Department must have some ideas on this subject, because it is an administrative question of some importance. It would be absurd of this Committee to sanction an expenditure on Employment Exchanges, based on a figure of 2,500,000 unemployed, when in a short time a Conservative Government may come in again and the figure may fall to 1,000,000 or 1,500,000.
Ever since he came into office the right hon. Gentleman has been urged to tackle the question of an Employment Exchange in Bristol. I understand, although that project has been under consideration for some time, that the new Exchange will not be started until next June. The figure of unemployed in Bristol to-day is something like 25,000, whereas, two years ago, under a Conservative administration it was something like 12,000. Therefore the need for this Exchange is more necessary than ever and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if any provision is being made in this Estimate in connection with it. If not, I would urge him to get on with that work. I am not blaming him entirely for the delay, because I know that there was considerable delay in connection with this matter under the late Government also, but there is no excuse for this Government because this was going to be one of their special cares.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again discussing policy. The only questions before the Committee are whether this money is necessary or not, whether it should be granted or not and whether the reasons given for making the grant are adequate and sufficient. I would also remind the hon. Member that this Estimate only covers the period to the end of the present financial year, and does not relate to the next financial year.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I submit to your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, and I merely ask the Minister to state whether any money is included in this expenditure in respect of the Bristol Exchange. I think the Committee must be surprised at this heavy addition to the Estimates, and I think we are entitled to know on what basis this Estimate has been framed in relation to the volume of unemployment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I am sorry, Mr. Dunnico, that you have not been able to see your way to allow a little more latitude than usual in the discussion of this Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to an item of £7,000 for furniture, and, in view of this large sum and other items in the Estimate, one cannot help feeling that it rather indicates a, belief as to the permanency of the present figure of unemployment. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should find it necessary to provide so much more money in respect
of Exchanges up to the end of this financial year. In reference to the additional £25,000 in respect of rents, surely this is a very large sum when we take into account that the Estimate only covers six or seven weeks. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to inform the Committee as to the contracts which have been made for the renting of these properties. Are these weekly or monthly tenancies, or has the right hon. Gentleman entered into agreements covering long periods? That is a rather important fact, because it will give us an idea of whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the present very heavy unemployment is going to continue, or whether he has hopeful anticipations that it is of a transitory nature. I am sorry that I am unable to join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) in his congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman regarding this item. I am sorry that it has been found necessary
I appreciate the fact that under the Ruling from the Chair we cannot go into questions of general policy, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if I may, whether in framing this Estimate he is under the impression that we are likely in the near future to see any considerable reduction in the number of unemployed, or whether the provision of these Exchanges and the expenditure of this money indicates a belief on his part that the storm is likely to last longer than many of us anticipate? I was impressed with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman explained this Estimate, and I realise that he is very upset at having to come to the Committee to ask for an additional £85,000. It is all very well, however, to say that this £85,000 includes a sum of £38,000 which was knocked out of a previous Estimate, but that is not a correct or businesslike way of presenting figures of this kind. The Department ought to know that certain expenditure is likely to arise and ought to estimate for that expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman ought to inform the Committee how many new Exchanges will be necessary, where it will be necessary to provide permanent Exchanges, and also what are the terms on which these tenancies have been made and whether they are for short periods or for long periods.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a further explanation of this item of £7,000 for furniture. It seems a very large sum, and I take it that the right hon. Gentleman himself hopes that this furniture will not be required for an indefinite period, as he is always an optimistic person. I presume it does not mean the purchase of Chippendale or Sheraton furniture for these Employment Exchanges. I have recently sold a number of quite good pieces of furniture, and I found that I got next to nothing for them. Have the Minister or his representative attempted, at some of the auction rooms in our great cities, to see whether they could get furniture at rather less than the figures which must be contemplated by this Estimate?
Apart from that, I have noticed, over a large number of years in this House, that we are continually being asked to approve the expenditure of considerable sums for the purchase of furniture, when an emergency of any kind arises, for the equipment of additional offices. During the War tremendous expenditure was necessarily incurred in the equipment of a large number of additional offices. I agree that you could not keep in store all the additional furniture which was then required, but surely it would pay the Office of Works, in the various towns where it is likely to have calls upon it for office accommodation, to have, in some part of the town where rent is not high, a store where ordinary office furniture could be kept in case of emergency. We are always being asked to purchase new furniture. In the last two or three years we have had a great deal of temporary office accommodation closed down, and what has happened to all that furniture? Has it all been scrapped or sold for next to nothing?
I think it would be economical if we had some storage accommodation. I quite agree that you cannot send furniture from London to Liverpool except at considerable expense, but I should be glad to know whether this is a point which the Department take into consideration: that when an emergency arises, as, for instance, here, this £7,000 worth of furniture will not be thrown on the market. As we all know, when you send second-hand furniture on
to the market, just as with a second-hand motor car, you get next to nothing for it. I think the Committee should not be continually asked for these large sums of money for new furniture.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) talked about an increased sum of £7,000, but I think he rather understated the case and let off the Minister very lightly. The Minister is asking for £49,200, which includes the increase of £7,000, and that is not all. If one looks at the original Estimate for Class VII—which it would be out of order to discuss now—one finds that under item "J" of the same Vote, in addition to "C," which we are now debating, there is another item of £9,700 representing furniture for labour and health buildings. It is on page 15, Class VII, Vote 4, Civil Estimates 83.—VII. Year after year in this House I have noticed this recurring expenditure for furniture, and while I have been in this House something like £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 must have been spent by the various Governments for furniture. Where is this recurring expenditure going to end? I think we ought to have an account now of what is going to be spent under the right hon. Gentleman's Department, so that we do not have to raise this point on every Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. The £9,700 does not come into this discussion at all, and I do not know why I should be called upon to discuss it.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it, and I said I should be out of order in discussing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington has said, this is not Chippendale or medieval oak furniture which is being bought. These are merely ordinary office equipments and, it may be, tables and chairs. Why should new furniture be bought time after time? I have been through the Civil Estimates while I have been sitting here, and I find that we are voting under Class VII something like a quarter of a million of money on furniture, and I would point out that when you have to pay £49,200 for furniture, it is no less than 15 per cent. of the
£319,770 for which we are now asked in respect to "new works, alterations, additions, and purchases." I think the time has come when the Office of Works, instead of asking year after year for this money, should make up its mind to take advantage of the misfortunes of people like my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington, who sells his furniture for next to nothing. Why should not the Office of Works secure from honest and decent shopkeepers second-hand furniture for their requirements? I appeal to you, Mr. Dunnico, in this matter. If you or I were to take a new house, we should not at once get new furniture but should most likely look around and see whether we could not find some old household furniture instead. I protest against this expenditure on new furniture year after year.

Major DAVIES: I have been searching through the Supplementary Estimates in order to find some part on which I could congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, but I confess that I have found that task not unaccompanied by some difficulty. Taking the largest item first, that of £38,000, it is clear that we are called upon to vote this sum partially because of misplaced optimism on the part of the Department in bringing forward the original Estimate. I think there may have been a little hit of window-dressing about it, and I imagine that the Department was afraid to tell the House of Commons what was the real amount which would be required. The right hon. Gentleman was careful to tell us that this £38,000 is spread over the whole of his Department, and if we asked to what particular item it referred he confessed he would be unable to give a detailed explanation. That makes the situation rather difficult and shows that my suspicions are well founded, that the £38,000 was originally wiped off in a general spirit of hopefulness and comfort in the thought that it would be put back in due course. This is the "due course." It is not for us, in these circumstances, to be able very closely to press the right hon. Gentleman as to the actual directions in which he was so optimistic, whether for permanent buildings for some reduction of chairs, tables, desks, and so forth.
Going from that to the next figure in a descending order of size, I come to
Item E, "Rents, etc., £25,000," and here I can perhaps give a slight word of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman. The cause of this Supplementary Estimate, and indeed of the original Estimate itself, is the enormous charges, direct and indirect, connected with unemployment. It is a most regrettable and tragic fact that the figures at this moment are so much higher than they have ever been before, and it is only natural that the Department should have to face up to that situation, but I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that there is an indication in this Supplementary Estimate that a considerable amount of the accommodation that he feels compelled to provide is only temporary; that is to say, that it is rentable property and not included in the first item of £10,000 for the provision of improved accommodation.
It must be in the hearts of hon. and right hon. Members opposite that at some future time, be it near or far, the total figures will begin to show a reduction, and we may find ourselves left with an enormous lot of real estate and buildings on our hands, provided for a particular purpose, which purpose we shall all be delighted to think no longer obtains. Therefore, I think it is a very wise policy that, in spite of attempts by hon. Members behind the Minister, which I have noted all through the past year, urging him to acquire additional permanent premises, there should be a tendency, where possible, to rent even not quite so suitable premises. It would be a quite unwarranted expenditure of public money to add to the permanent equipment one building more than is absolutely essential, if we can possibly rent it, and that is why I get a little bit of satisfaction from this particular item.
I should like to get an assurance that every effort is being made not to commit the Government to actual purchases, and particularly to the erection of new buildings, but that as far as possible the utilisation and adaptation of rented premises is taken into consideration. It is unfortunate and misleading that we still have to spend all this money for this equipment and these premises and still call the premises "Employment Exchanges," as if they were really performing a function in the exchange of labour, when everybody knows that they are
neither more nor less than dole-drawing depots. I think it might be borne in mind, in connection with the bringing in of these Estimates, that the time has now come to face up to the purposes for which this vast expenditure is being incurred.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with this Vote. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to discuss anything for which the Minister or his Department is not responsible.

Major DAVIES: I was trying to avoid the Scylla of policy and fell on the Charybdis of kindness to the right hon. Gentleman. I have nothing to say on the furniture question, which has been dealt with at some length. It is obvious that whether premises are rented or purchased, some form of furnishing has to take place. In view of certain speeches in this House, not entirely on this side, we do not wish to lose any opportunity of emphasising something which I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has at heart as much as anybody, namely, the necessity of renting premises instead of purchasing them, and of getting second-hand and used furniture instead of new. Every step should be taken to keep new demands on the public purse down to the lowest possible amount.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: You have given us your guidance, Mr. Dunnico, that this Debate is not to be extended to questions of policy. Nevertheless, there is one aspect of a Parliamentary Supplementary Estimate to which some reference ought to be made. I wish to express a point of view which is widely held, and has already found some expression in the Debate. This sum of £85,000 should not be asked for and granted, because we cannot, as a matter of fact, afford any supplementary expenditure at all this year. It is impossible to consider this sum as if it were unrelated to any other facts in the national finances of the year. Admittedly, we must discuss this Estimate on its own merits, but, in order to realise what its merits are, we must consider the wider aspect of affairs, if only by referring to the very interesting summary on the preface page of these Estimates. We find that the £85,000, which we are now called upon to vote as additional expen-
diture for the year, is a constituent element of a total sum of no less than £14,000,000. The country cannot afford £14,000,000, and the only way of recording that opinion is by arguing that it cannot afford this £85,000.
Owing to the Rules of Order, we are debarred from any suitable occasion for discussing the £14,000,000 as a lump, so that all we can do is to express our opinion in relation to each constituent element in it, pointing out that although the little more on this occasion, and another little more that will be asked for on some other, and the further little more—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the £14,000,000 in question has been approved by the House. We cannot discuss what the House has decided.

Sir H. YOUNG: I shall avoid discussion of the total sum. I am only pointing out in regard to these Supplementary Estimates, the general attitude of the Government towards national finance which appears to be improvident, careless and, I might even say, inefficient. On such an occasion as this, with the national finances in their present position, when we are asked for a sum of £85,000 on a Supplementary Estimate—I know that it is looked upon as an almost negligible sum, yet every mickle makes a muckle—we ought to have an account from the Minister as to whether or not we have the money to pay the amount. For almost the first time in the history of our national finances, there is not money to meet this £85,000, and the Committee ought not to be asked to vote any sum unless it is certain that it can be met.

Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order, because the question before the House is the reduced amount of £84,900, and as the Opposition are prepared to grant that amount, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks seem to be directed to something which is not before the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Technically, the right hon. Gentleman is right, but actually the custom of the House is
that an Amendment to reduce the Vote by £100 is equivalent to objecting to the full or any portion of the amount.

Sir K. WOOD: It is only the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to help the Government.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Even if the right hon. Gentleman be technically right, I take it that we shall be allowed to argue that £100 is much too small a reduction?

Sir H. YOUNG: I must express my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) on the failure of his well-meant effort to bring relief to an embarrassed Minister. He assumed a position of failing to apprehend the issue before the Committee, but I am sure, from his long experience of the House that he knew perfectly well what the issue was.

Major MUIRHEAD: He should turn over a new leaf.

Sir H. YOUNG: At the present time, when for the first time in recent Parliamentary finance we seem to be budgeting for a deficit, no proposal for any expenditure should be made, even if it be a token Vote of £10, without a Treasury Minister appearing before us in order to inform us whether or not the draft which is being drawn upon the public finances can be met. We have arrived at a most lamentable condition as regards Parliamentary responsibility when we can go on, by these accumulations of small extravagances piling up a position which we know will be disastrous, without insisting upon calling to a sense of their responsibility those who are at present in charge of our national finances. It shows a lack of the sense of proporiton as regards the necessities of national finance when the right hon. Gentleman in present circumstances introduces a demand for improved accommodation for Employment Exchanges. This is not a time for improving accommodation which has been found possible in the past. We know quite well the standards of accommodation of our public buildings. They may sometimes be a little short of what is perfect, but they are always adequate, and in present conditions the right hon. Gentleman shows a lack of the sense of proportion by in-
dulging in extravagances of this sort. I hope that he will not think that I say this from any lack of sympathy for the amenities of life of Government officials. At the present time, however, everybody will be prepared to make sacrifices in order to pull us through our difficulties. Some hon. Members opposite may be surprised to find where the principle of sacrifice will have to be met in order to redeem the financial situation, and the Government, with their attention on the buildings and the standards and conditions of life of their employés, must be prepared at the present time to call a halt, and to make the same sacrifices that are expected from everybody else.
This Estimate gives an admirable opportunity for once more expressing a protest against the method of the overhead cut. The overhead cut which appears in this case is £38,000, being the "amount deducted from original gross estimate." The Committee should apprehend what is going on. The Department made their original Estimate. The Treasury said, "We think that is too big, and we are going to give you less money to spend." Naturally the Treasury, in the infinite complexity of modern administration, were unable to put their finger upon a particular point at which they could reduce the Estimate of the Department. Nevertheless, they said, "Owing to the necessities of national finance this year, we are going to reduce your estimate, and, since we cannot say exactly what item we can reduce, we are going to put on an overhead cut of £38,000." That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory method. It is better than no cut at all. If we cannot have accurate Estimates, I would rather have the overhead cut imposed, but we need sound and accurate estimating, and the Department should ask for the money that they want and no more, so that we should not have to have this rough and ready method by which the Treasury lays in with an axe, imposing the overhead cut with financial brutality.
We have got into a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs when we cannot have an Estimate accurately prepared asking for the amount of money required, and no more. It is making a joke of estimating, but it is legitimate, and it may be desirable, on the one condition that the overhead cut is absolutely
observed, and that the peg which the Treasury puts in is not allowed to slip. It becomes a most improper financial method when, as in this case, the overhead cut is not to be taken seriously, but when, towards the end of the Session, the Department ask for a Supplementary Vote in order to restore the amount knocked out on the original Estimate. It is really deceiving the House of Commons. The principle of the overhead cut is that it contains a positive assurance—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is going beyond the limits of this discussion. He cannot discuss a method of the Treasury for which the First Commissioner of Works is not responsible. He can only discuss what the Minister is responsible for in his Department, and the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for any overhead cuts made by the Treasury.

5.0 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am obliged to you for your assistance in confining this discussion within the limits of Order. On a point of Order. May I call your attention to two circumstances which might assist you to define how far this discussion should range. A Treasury Minister's name is on this Motion and on the Estimates. I suggest that it is therefore relevant to consider the action of the Treasury as well as the action of the Minister. I wish to call attention to the following note on page 17 of the Estimate:
In the original Estimate a deduction of £38,000 was made from the total of these sub-heads in respect of services which might not be carried out during the year. The progress of the services has been such that it is now anticipated that the full amount will be required.
Therefore, what we are, in effect, doing is replacing the £38,000. My argument is that it is improper that we should be asked to do that, and I say that particularly applies to a sum deducted by way of overhead cut, because such a very rough and ready and imperfect method of finance can only be justified if the cut is taken as an absolute limitation of expenditure from which there is to be no departure. If, as now, we are asked to replace the money, such procedure simply opens up the possibility of deluding the House of Commons When the original Estimate is introduced, because any amount of overhead cut—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is still out of order. The explanation of the reasons for reinserting this particular sum is given for the information of the Committee. The Chairman must accept it. If the Treasury are to blame for the method adopted in dealing with these Estimates, the point ought to be raised directly on a Treasury Vote, and not on a Vote which concerns the Office of Works.

Mr. LEIF JONES: On that point of Order. May I point out that if the right hon. Gentleman does pursue this line of argument the whole policy of making these cuts would come up for discussion, and would raise a number of points some of which have not been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It would be necessary to argue them at some length. I am not at all in favour of the view that these deductions are necessarily a bad thing, and I should want to argue against the view which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is hardly a point of Order. What I wish to make clear is that if the Committee are to get through their business we must keep the Debate within the limits of the particular Vote before us. The discussion raised by the right hon. Gentleman could be raised directly on every Supplementary Estimate that comes before the Committee, and in that case an absurd position would arise. If this matter is one meriting the attention of the House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman must raise it on a Vote of the particular Department responsible for it, and not upon this Vote.

Sir H. YOUNG: If you please, Sir; but I will venture to call these points to your attention. In the first place, it must be possible to discuss this question at some time, because if it were ruled out on each Estimate on which it arises it would never be possible to discuss it at all. Secondly, as regards what you have said about this being a matter involving the Treasury, I would suggest that, in the first place, the responsibility for an Estimate is the responsibility of the Department. If we are not able to challenge the amount demanded by a Department upon its own Estimate it may amount to a very serious hindrance to criticism of a Department's finances.
Secondly, and more especially on this particular point, while no doubt the method of the overhead cut is one which is accepted by the Treasury and, it may even be, is devised by the Treasury—the original reduction of this £38,000 may have been made on Treasury responsibility—it is clear that the restoration of the £38,000 must be the responsibility of the Department, because it has been necessitated by Departmental expenditture, and it is really from that point of view that I have criticised it on this occasion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I say at once, and quite plainly, that I have no desire to prevent the right hon. Gentleman discussing the £38,000 in so far as it affects the budgeting of the Department concerned, and in my position in charge of this Debate I have no knowledge whatever of overhead cuts. On this particular Supplementary Estimate the precise reason why the £38,000 is now asked for is given in the Estimate, and that is the only question before the Committee. If any method has been followed for which the Treasury is responsible I must repeat that it must be raised on a Vote concerning the Treasury.

Sir H. YOUNG: If you please, Sir, and I will content myself by saying that a Department which has been subjected to an overhead cut ought to show a special reluctance to undertake expenditure which will necessitate the restoration of the money which was the subject of the cut. In your original directions as to the course of this Debate you said it would be in order to discuss whether the expenditure ought to be granted, a point to which I have already referred; and, secondly, you said that the relevant issue was whether it was expenditure that. was necessary, and I venture to say, in one word, that no such expenditure as this can be necessary, because there is no reason why unemployment should have been allowed to mount to its present figure.

Mr. J. JONES: I have a feeling that we are in the land of the innocents abroad. I have been a Member of this House for 12 years, and have heard similar speeches delivered by both parties when we have been discussing Supplementary Estimates, and yet these Supplementary Estimates keep coming along. The right hon. Member for
Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) says it is not necessary to provide more accommodation at Employment Exchanges. I would like to take him on a tour of the East End of London to show him some of the Employment Exchanges where men and women in their hundreds, if not in their thousands, have to muster to draw their unemployment benefit; and I will undertake to say that if his wife, or anybody else belonging to him, had to stand about in similar circumstances he would not merely vote for this £85,000, but for any amount of money that might be necessary to remove the present difficulties. We are not responsible for the fact that these people have to muster at the Employment Exchanges. A new Employment Exchange which has been erected in my division has no sanitary accommodation for either men or women. I suppose the right hon. Member would say that he is a Christian and believes in all the ordinary decencies of human life, and I am sure he will agree that we ought to provide proper sanitary accommodation, though he is not used to being amongst the poor unemployed, but is mainly concerned with the rich unemployed. The latter do not have to go to Employment Exchanges to draw their dole; they go to the banks for it, or they have it sent by their, brokers. Our people even have to line up at a temporary urinal. I do not want to see permanent Labour Exchanges, but I know that under capitalism they will be permanent. As long as the present system lasts we shall have an unemployed army of at least 1,000,000.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that we cannot discuss the causes of unemployment. All that we can discuss on the Estimate is the making of adequate provision for those who are unemployed attending Employment Exchanges.

Mr. JONES: I quite agree. Mine is only a side issue, as compared with the speeches from the opposite side of the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order! I have ruled impartially.

Mr. JONES: I do not wish to say your Ruling is wrong, Sir, I quite accept it, and all I was wishing to submit is that this expenditure is necessary and ought to have been undertaken before.
Supplementary Estimates are very often submitted though there is no justification for them. I will undertake to say that if this had been a Supplementary Estimate to provide more accommodation for naval or military officers hon. Members opposite would be supporting it with both hands and feet, but they are not so anxious about it as it concerns unemployed people. These men and women are being treated now as though they were simply dole takers; in the eyes of some hon. Members they are not human beings, they are taking something for nothing, which is their opinion as experts, who know all about it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is not whether they are entitled to what they are receiving or not. The only question is the provision of proper buildings to which they may go to receive what they are getting.

Mr. JONES: That is what I am arguing, that they ought to have proper accommodation. If this money is not voted they will not get that accommodation. Those of us who mix with these people every day of our lives and have to deal with their grievances day by day and hour by hour claim that the accommodation is not being provided. As I have said before, I invite any hon. Member opposite to come with me to my own constituency, where he will see hundreds of men and women standing in queues for hours at a time through lack of proper accommodation. Surely they are human beings, just as we are. I have already approached the Minister about the conditions at one of the Employment Exchanges, but up to now proper arrangements have not been made. I suppose it is due to lack of money. These financial people do not look at the thing from the point of view of treating these unemployed men and women as human beings. Do they want to treat them as criminals Are they suggesting that they ought to be left outside the pale of ordinary civilised life? [Interruption.] When elections are on they talk about the unemployed with tears in their voices, but when it is a question of treating them with elementary decency, they say the money cannot be found, the country is too poor. That comes from
men with directorships averaging £1,000 a year—for directing nothing, because they cannot direct anything. They say now that the nation is too poor to afford decent treatment to men and women who, when they have had a chance, have done the best they could.

Captain CAZALET: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has told us that he has been in the House for 12 years, and that when Supplementary Estimates are introduced he hears more or less similar speeches from both parties in the House. Surely that shows that for 12 years Members of Parliament have been trying to do their duty, and to examine with great care every pound which the Government want to spend, especially when we are asked for a considerable sum in addition to the Estimates originally put before the House. I wish to know whether this cut of £38,000 was made by the Ministry concerned in order to meet the wishes of the Treasury, or was it imposed by the Treasury on the Ministry; and, if that be the case, I wish to know how that £38,000 was calculated? Is it a percentage cut on the total estimate of the Department? We ought to be allowed to hear exactly how the £38,000 was arrived at. I will refer for a moment to the question of furniture. Almost everything has been said on this subject that can be said, but perhaps I may he permitted to draw attention to one fact which emerges from the discussion, and it is that there are many hon. Members in every part of the House who have a great deal of spare second-hand furniture which they would be ready to offer to the Government at a cheap rate.

Mr. LANSBURY: There is a law against that.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask you, Mr. Dunnico, if the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) is in order in seeking to advertise that he has some old furniture to sell?

Captain CAZALET: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman would not be prepared to pay the price of my secondhand furniture. But perhaps hon. Members would be willing to give their second-hand furniture as a free offering
in order to help the First Commissioner of Works out of his trouble, and this might be the means of effecting some further economy. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether all this furniture is wholly British made. I think that is a fair point to raise, and I hope we shall be given a full answer. The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) spoke of the conditions under which the officials had to work in the Employment Exchanges, due to the enormous amount of additional work which had been imposed upon them by the large increase in unemployment. The sum asked for in order to make the work of these officials more comfortable is a very small amount indeed. I would like to inquire whether the Minister is satisfied with the conditions that prevail today in these various offices, for if the conditions are unsatisfactory it means that the work will not be efficiently done. I suggest that some of the abuses which have been complained of to-day are due to the inadequate accommodation in the offices of the Employment Exchanges, and I think we ought to have a few words from the Minister of Labour in regard to the prevailing conditions.
The hon. Member for Silvertown has given us some dramatic details in regard to certain Employment Exchanges with which he is acquainted. It is always well to give an example in order to prove a case, but I cannot believe that the conditions which the hon. Member outlined are prevalent in any great degree in the various Employment Exchanges throughout the country, and a few words on that point from the Minister of Labour would be very acceptable on these benches. The main question which has been put by hon. Members on this side of the House has not been answered, and it is on what basis of unemployment are the Government estimating in asking the Committee to vote the sum we are discussing. Does the Minister of Labour think that the existing accommodation will be sufficient in the near future, or will she have to come again in a short time with another Supplementary Estimate for this purpose? We are very desirous of getting a reply from the Minister of Labour on these points.

Mr. LANSBURY: Most of the questions which have been put deal with the same subject. The first question is
in relation to the cut which has been going on for the last seven or eight years. Last year nearly all the questions put on this point were answered by the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, if I had had time I would have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I would have quoted their own answers to these questions. I quite understand that hon. Members' views may change on a subject of this kind. Complaint has been made that the work we are carrying out is not being done in an efficient manner, but the hon. Baronet who made that complaint is quite wrong, and he knows as well as I do that the Estimates are very carefully prepared by very efficient civil servants, and therefore the last charge that could be made is that of inefficiency.
It seems to me that hon. Members opposite did not take the trouble to listen to me when I spoke on this very subject at the beginning of the Debate, because I pointed out that the cut was made because it had been found impossible to estimate more closely on account of the fact that the Estimates concerned are affected by such things as bad weather. If you get a very bad season during the summer or the springtime, very often your buildings are delayed and you cannot get on with the work. Furthermore, there is great difficulty experienced sometimes in negotiating for the necessary sites. Everybody who has had to buy property for the Government, or for a municipal authority, knows that, in one particular year, or on one particular occasion, you may be successful in your negotiations, and obtain your site very quickly. I pointed out that last year we failed to do that, and therefore a very large sum was carried over, as it were, and was unspent. This year we have been more fortunate. Our work is proceeding without interference by bad weather, and we have been more successful in getting through our negotiations for the purchase of sites. That is the whole reason for the extra expenditure and the restoration of the cut. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that the Office of Works does not go into expenditure of this kind without the supervision, control and assent of the Treasury.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Then why does not the Treasury answer?

Mr. LANSBURY: It is my business, as it happens, to answer, and no one else's, and the hon. Gentleman has no right to assert that someone else should answer. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is the fact in regard to this expenditure, and to have all this nonsensical twaddle—

Mr. SAMUEL: I want to raise a point of Order. On this side of the House we have argued this question very courteously, and I do not think that we should be addressed by the right hon. Gentleman in that way, and told that our objections are nonsensical twaddle.

Mr. STEPHEN: That is a phrase which is constantly used and applied to the arguments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think the phrase is thoroughly in order, and, as a matter of fact, it is the only phrase to describe what they say.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no desire to say anything discourteous, but, when I was told a little while ago that these Estimates showed inefficiency, I think that was as severe as my criticism, and I was only replying to that argument.

Sir K. WOOD: I think we are entitled to have your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, on this point. I do not know whether you heard the words used by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think you did, but I am sure such a phrase will not advance the right hon. Gentleman's Estimates, and you, Mr Dunnico, might very well rule that the phrase which was used was not in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was otherwise employed at the moment, and I did not hear the conversation. I understand that the word used was "nonsensical," but I cannot rule that that word is out of order; it is purely a matter of taste.

Mr. LANSBURY: As I want to be an example of good taste, I will withdraw that expression. I think it is really absurd for hon. Members opposite to talk in the fashion which they have adopted to-night without any consideration for those who are in charge of these matters. Complaints have been made, and on that account the Minister of Labour asked the Department to expedite this work. The
work was expedited, with the result that we have spent the whole of our original estimate, and something in addition.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Did the right hon. Gentleman estimate the spending of £3,000 in Bristol?

Mr. LANSBURY: We spent £3,000, and the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) pestered me pretty fairly to get that amount spent. The hon. Member is not so thin skinned, and he knows perfectly well that he has done as much as anyone else to get that amount spent under this Estimate. With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), I should like to say that accommodation is being provided in Freemason's Road, and there is an exchange to be erected at the bottom end of Burdett Road, at the corner of Dod Street. That site has been purchased, and I hope, although I cannot give any definite pledge about it, that the new exchange will very soon be in operation. I do not know, Mr. Dunnico, how you may rule, but I have been asked on what basis we are making provision for the unemployed, that is to say, whether we are reckoning on the figure being always 2,500,000. I should like to point out that in 1927 a Select Committee of the House of Commons put forward a programme to the Minister of Labour of that day, and that programme was based upon 4 per cent. of the insured workers being unemployed. We have not caught up to that 4 per cent. yet; we are nowhere near it. We are working to it, and when that has been accomplished it will be time enough to consider a new basis. That is the answer to that question.
As regards furniture, even if we took furniture out of a store we should have to charge it up somewhere, and, therefore, you get figures here showing that the charge has been made against the Department. I suppose everyone understands that. It does not mean that we always go and buy new furniture for temporary premises. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman who has ancient furniture for sale. It does not all mean chairs and tables; it means filing cabinets, files, desks, stools, and all kinds of other things. I should like to tell the right hon. Baronet who has
just left the Committee that it is Employment Exchanges, and not officials, that we are providing for. We are making provision for men and women who are compelled to attend at these places in order to sign on, and I think everyone will agree that the nation ought to supply decent places in which to carry on that work. We do not provide lounges and arm-chairs, or Jacobean or any other kind of furniture, as the hon. Member well knows, but we do, as far as we are able, supply the kind of equipment that will enable the work to be done with decency and, as far as possible, with comfort to those who are out of work and have to attend. I think I have now replied to all the questions that have been put to me.

Mr. ALBERY: While the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with that subject, may I ask one question? Could he give us some explanation as to the big discrepancy in the amounts which have been spent in different towns of apparently somewhat different standing? For instance, I see that in Sheffield the total amount was £39,000, in Cardiff, £37,000, and in Birmingham, £40,000, while, on the other hand, in Glasgow it was only £28,000.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask what figures the hon. Member is reading? Is he reading from the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. ALBERY: No, from the original Estimate, of which these Supplementary Estimates are part. The Committee is considering Supplementary Estimates on these Votes, and there is this big discrepancy to which I have referred. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman, before sitting down, would be able to give us a word of explanation as to why the expenditure in one town is nearly double the expenditure in another town of similar standing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot now go into the original Estimates, upon which the House has already decided. All that we can discuss now are the Supplementary Estimates. If the hon. Member has in mind some particular place where he thinks neglect has occurred, it would be in order to refer to that, but a general discussion on the original Estimates would not be in order.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does not that show the difficulty in which we are in dealing with this sum of £38,000? I do not, of course, for one moment dispute your Ruling, but we have here a cut of £38,000, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) has referred, I think with some reason, to certain towns in which the money is being spent. As this overhead cut is not allocated to any particular place, but is general, no one knows in what towns the money may or may not be spent. Is it not, therefore, the case that you, Mr. Dunnico, are placed in a difficulty when we are discussing this cut of £38,000, because it may have been a cut at the very places referred to by my hon. Friend? For that reason I would appeal to you to allow him to refer to the possibility of some portion of the cut of £38,000 being allocated to the cities which he has in mind.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be in order in calling attention to a place where the Employment Exchange was inadequate for its purpose, but he would not be in order in criticising the details of the original Estimate passed by the House a year ago.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can only deal with one point of Order at a time.

Mr. ALBERY: I only wanted to say that, in the case of each of the towns to which I referred in my question, there is a Supplementary Estimate, and in some cases the amount is considerable. I will take two cases. In the case of Birmingham the total amount spent is £40,000, while in the case of Glasgow, on the other hand, it is £28,000. There are many other cases in these Estimates—including the Supplementary Estimates—where there is a big discrepancy of this kind between two towns, and I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation as to why one city should require double the amount required by another of similar standing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is speaking on the original Estimate, and not on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I submit that in your original Ruling, you said that, if we considered that in any particular town too little had been spent, we could discuss it? Would not the same apply if in a particular town too much had been spent, thus giving rise to this Supplementary Estimate? Should not we be allowed to discuss that question?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I used the words "too little had been spent." What I said was that, if an hon. Member felt that adequate provision was not made in a given locality, there was no objection to his making reference to that point; but at present the discussion is going a good deal farther than that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely, an hon. Member's observations need not be confined to his own constituency? Would he not be allowed to raise a matter outside his own constituency?

Sir F. HALL: I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would be kind enough to give us some idea as to whether he anticipated a permanent increase in unemployment. Would he be good enough to explain to us the increase of £25,000 in the accounts for this period, and tell us whether the agreements into which he has entered have been for a short or long period?

Mr. LANSBURY: The increase is due to the fact that there are 2,500,000 unemployed, and that there has been a very considerable increase during this year. The agreements are short. They are weekly or monthly agreements—for as short a period as we can possibly make them.

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps I may be allowed to offer one or two observations on the speech of the First Commissioner. of course, the right hon. Gentleman has his own methods of getting through his Estimates, but I would respectfully suggest that he should not think, when questions are put to him from this side of the Committee in fulfilment of an important duty which has always played an important part in House of Commons procedure, he must, therefore, feel a sense of grievance. The whole of his speech seemed to indicate that he thought he was the most aggrieved man alive because these questions were being put to him,
and because he had to come here this afternoon and defend his Estimate. That is a most astonishing attitude for a Minister to take. The right hon. Gentleman comes here with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and they present Supplementary Estimates amounting to £1,858,500. The first is one for £85,000, presented by the First Commissioner of Works, and his whole attitude has been one of complaint—I do not know whether it is Parliamentary to say whining, but that seemed to me to the sort of attitude which the right hon. Gentleman was adopting.
I would respectfully suggest to him that he alone is not responsible for these Estimates. After all, at the bottom of this Estimate, and of the Motion itself which is on the Order Paper, stands the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the right hon. Gentleman must not think, when we say we want to know what is the position of the Treasury in this matter, that that is an unreasonable attitude to adopt. That is the reason, I understand, why the Financial Secretary is here this afternoon, as we should expect him to be. We know that he desires to carry out his duties to the best of his ability, and no doubt he is prepared if necessary to defend the Estimate as well. Therefore, do not let them think that they are under some sort of grievance. One knows that they have their difficulties and troubles at the present time, but let them shake off, and, when they come to the House of Commons, show a little cheerfulness of spirit. After all, this sum is not a small one. The First Commissioner seems to think that, when a sum of £85,000 is mentioned, he ran, so to speak, walk into the Committee and take it away with him without any question being asked at all. The Government appear to have become so used to this terrific expenditure that they think a sum of £85,000 is of no moment at all. I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Young), who at one time occupied the position of Financial Secretary, that, unless we begin to take account of even small items of this kind, the House of Commons will be losing its functions altogether. I am not going to attempt to refer to other Debates, but the right hon. Gentleman is now follow-
ing out the suggestion which was supported by the Liberal party the other day that we should allow the Government to walk away for six months with many millions of money and not ask them to account for it. Surely, they will support us in asking for a proper scrutiny and a proper explanation of a sum of £85,000. If we are going to let the Government have a free run with millions of money, paying no regard to figures like £85,000, the House of Commons might as well give up its functions so far as the supervision of finance is concerned, and I daresay some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters would rather approve of such a course. [Interruption.] As to the Minister's attitude, we certainly must have some regard for the traditions of the House, and he should not consider this sum of £85,000 as a small amount. I do not think, with all respect, that he has really given us the information to which we are entitled so far as this Estimate is concerned. It is true that he presented the item as if it were a token, but he has given us very few particulars so far as a good many items in this amount are concerned.
I want to make my position plain as regards better accommodation at Employment Exchanges and better conditions generally. I have had experience, as other Members have, and I think that the worst sights that can he seen in this country at the present time are those long queues of unfortunate people who have to stand outside these Exchanges; and I would not say for a moment that some proper provision should not be made for them. But the right hon. Gentleman has to account to the Committee and tell us what has been done as regards that Item E for rent.

Mr. MacLAREN: Why grouse about it?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member misunderstands me. I am not complaining. It is the function of the Committee to make inquiries and to scrutinise these accounts. The hon. Member must not think that, because we are asking questions, we are necessarily complaining of a particular item or saying that proper provision should not be made. It is our proper function to ascertain in exactly what way the money has been expended. All the information we have been given
is that these are varying tenancies for six months or a year or two years. That does not permit us to test whether the Government have been judicious and careful in the expenditure of this money. If the right hon. Gentleman had given us a few examples of leases or agreements, we should be able to see whether proper bargains had been made.

Mr. MacLAREN: We should be here all night.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member says we should be some time discussing it. That is not a matter that we need be unduly apprehensive about if we are doing our duty. I am sure the hon. Member would spend any number of hours in order that that might be done. I do not think anyone would object to proper and decent provision being made for these people. This Estimate is only another item in the tragic tale of unemployment and its consequences. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has used proper discretion and has had regard to the financial position in the agreements into which he has entered. Has he taken premises in some of the principal streets, because that is quite unnecessary. All that is wanted is proper and adequate provision for the people who, unfortunately, have to draw their unemployment benefit. A large amount of money has been wasted in the past on rents in very expensive thoroughfares. It is only by hearing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done that we can come to any judgment in the matter and can know whether money can be saved. We do not want to waste time and, if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some more particulars, it would expedite the progress of the Vote.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The First Commissioner has tried to get away with this Estimate by saying that it was a matter of a very small amount merely restoring the original Estimate. He forgot that any Department could get any Estimate whatever through merely by putting a figure enormously beyond their obvious needs getting a Treasury cut and restoring to the original position without introducing a Supplementary Estimate at all. After the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) it is apparent that this is a large matter con-
cerning £85,000 and not the smaller sum which you, Sir, said was the reason why we should not travel too far in our discussions. The matter has really extended in scope. I submit to your Ruling in every way, but the Debate has somewhat enlarged itself.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member at the outset of his speech that my Ruling still stands. I have not departed one iota from my original Ruling.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The First Commissioner somewhat enlarged the discussion by his own speech, because he raised the question whether the Treasury was entitled to answer on this matter at all. He said it was his business. I remember very distinctly that you said at the beginning of the discussion that we were entitled to ask the Minister of Labour certain questions which she was entitled to answer.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not impute to me words which I did not use. I made no such reference concerning the Minister of Labour, but to the Minister in charge of this Vote.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am very sorry if I was mistaken. I understood you to say we were entitled to ask the Minister any questions that we chose to ask, though we could not enter into the wider question of policy and unemployment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member ought to know perfectly well. I have ruled again and again that the Minister in charge of the Supplementary Estimate is the First Commissioner. He is the responsible Minister, and questions must be addressed to him.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If questions are addressed involving the Treasury and the Ministry of Labour—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is well known that when a responsible Minister is put up to answer questions it has been ruled by my predecessors to be out of order to question the right of the Government to appoint that Minister to represent it.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: It seems to me that the Motion is down in the name
of the Treasury, and, if I have made a mistake, it is a mistake that one might easily make. If the Motion is in the name of the Treasury—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I want to say distinctly that the original suggestion that the hon. Member imputed to me was that I had stated that any question could be put to the Minister of Labour. I never mentioned the Minister of Labour, though I may have mentioned the Minister in charge of the Vote. The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Prime Minister a question if it is relevant, but the Prime Minister can decide whether or not to answer.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I rather hope the Financial Secretary will decide to answer on the matter. I wish to cut away the ragged edges of the Debate and come down to two very definite matters that are dealt with in the Vote. With regard to furniture, the right hon. Gentleman may consider that this is taking an unfair opportunity on a minor matter, but people who feel deeply about things are entitled to raise them even though they are questions of the smallest detail. We want to know whether this furniture was of British manufacture. We want to be absolutely sure, in any question of public expenditure, that, as far as possible, the interests of employment in this country are served. This £75,000 worth of furniture would give a great deal of employment, and we want to know what proportion of it is new, whether it is of British manufacture and whether the materials are British. We want to be absolutely assured that there is no Russian timber used in our public works. The right hon. Gentleman is a very suitable person to whom such a question could be put. In his unregenerate days, before he was made one of His Majesty's servants, he had a good deal of knowledge of the Russian timber trade, and will be able to make investigations which would not be open to us.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Just now hon. Members were very susceptible to a word that I used. I want to state that I never directly or indirectly had anything to do with the buying of Russian timber or soft woods of any kind.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am very glad to have that disclaimer. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to inform the Committee whether any of this furniture was made of Russian timber. The conscience of the people has been shocked by the conditions of labour there, and we wish to be absolutely assured that none of the furniture purchased for the use of any British public works is made under these terrible conditions. We intend to bring these matters forward on every possible opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to take umbrage. It is his duty to assure the Committee that no Russian timber is being used in this very considerable amount of new furniture.
The right hon. Gentleman has been congratulated, I think in a quite unnecessary way, by Members on this side of the House on the small increase of rents. Rent is a wasting asset, and we want to know in respect of what kinds of rent this £25,000 has been paid. It may he that rents have gone up on existing premises occupied by the Ministry of Labour. It may be that there have been one or two buildings in respect of which rent has been paid, or it may be it is spread over a whole area. I want to ask in respect of what buildings. giving some particularity to it, this £25,000 was incurred, how long are the tenancies going to last and for what period the liability has been incurred, because £25,000 for a week may be a very large matter hut for a longer period it might be comparatively small. There is a suspicious smallness about this Estimate, and I think the House of Commons and the country should be made aware that this amount is only in respect of actual property and has nothing to do with the large expenditure that must have been incurred with regard to employment in what was felicitously called, in a very unhappy speech, by the Minister of Transport the Unemployment Exchange industry. We have vastly bigger commitments which have been incurred—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: rose—

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I had practically finished, Sir.

6.0 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I can understand up to a point the desire for
a Supplementary Estimate being brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman owing to the fact that the numbers of the unemployed have increased so very materially since the present Government came in to office. I have had one or two experiences brought to my notice in my constituency with regard to conditions at Employment Exchanges, and I want to say a few words about them. I notice that under Item A provision is being made for improved accommodation for Employment Exchanges, and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether these improvements are merely for the personnel of the Exchanges, or are being made, for instance, for the convenience of the unfortunate people who are unemployed? In my constituency, which is in the North of England, there is a great deal of rain, I am sorry to say, and these people sometimes have to stand outside the Employment Exchanges for a very long time. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be possible at these Exchanges to provide some sort of shelter from the rain for the unfortunate people who have to wait outside.
I have approached the Minister of Labour on several occasions with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit in different villages in my constituency. I should like to thank the Minister for having arranged for the payment of benefit in one of the villages in my constituency which is some distance from one of the big towns, but she has repeatedly, on other occasions, refused to have payments made in villages where the accommodation for the Employment Exchange has been offered free of all rent to the Ministry of Labour. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is taking advantage of those offers, which are made in various villages, especially in the mill districts, of free accommodation for the officials of the Ministry of Labour to pay out and to sign on the people in the villages. This is a very important matter in a constituency where a good deal of rain falls, and it would help them very much if something could be done on these lines. One of the reasons which was given to me when I was communicating with the Minister on this point as to why this extra accommodation was not given in the villages was that
there was a good omnibus service from the village to the larger town where the Employment Exchange existed.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have nothing to do with determining whether unemployment benefit should be paid in this or that place. It is specifically a matter for the Minister of Labour, and does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

Sir W. BRASS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. In this Estimate he is asking for certain specific things. He wants a certain sum of money to be granted to him for rents of Employment Exchanges, for instance, and I want to know whether in considering the rents which he is going to pay, he has considered the free accommodation which is available in certain places in this country? I think that it is very pertinent to ask whether he has considered that matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): I was just trying to find out what the hon. Member was endeavouring to point out, and whether the right hon. Gentleman had any particular jurisdiction in this matter.

Mr. LANSBURY: Of course, I do not object to questions or discussion, but I understand from the hon. Member that he has written to the Minister of Labour suggesting that payment should be made in certain villages and that the Minister has declined to accede to the suggestion. I do not come into the matter at all. The Ministry of Labour instruct us where they want an Employment Exchange and we have to look round and get a site, or hire a building and so on, but we have no voice as to where that building or school shall be. That is a matter for the Ministry of Labour.

Sir W. BRASS: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the exact position now, which is, that the point I was discussing was really a point for the Minister of Labour and not for the right hon. Gentleman, because the Minister of Labour asks him to do something and he arranges for certain buildings, and so on, to be hired in certain places as the case may be.
There is another point to which I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. He has an item B, "Maintenance and Repairs," and I
should like to know whether this sum—it is not a very big sum—applies to the permanent buildings of the Ministry of Labour, or to the more temporary ones which are taken on from time to time as they become necessary under the present conditions. In regard to the question of rents, I see that the Estimate is for £25,000 for the hiring of additional premises. Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether, in taking these premises, the Government are careful to ensure that the lease is a short one and terminable at very short notice? That is a very important factor. If the right hon. Gentleman will answer these questions later on, I shall be very much obliged.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I appeal once again to the Minister out of his good heart, which he seems to have shown in the replies which he has made so far, really to explain the system upon which the super-cut is carried out? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) put the question very succinctly. The right hon. Gentleman, as far as I can make out, made no attempt to reply. It is clear that it is not being done on a percentage basis. Here you have super-cuts of £38,000 in an original total sum of £642,000. If the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, he will find that the super-cuts only appear in building votes under Class VII and not in other Estimates. If he will look at Vote 1 in Class VII, he will find there the super-cut was £53,000 in. a sum of £600,000, a very much bigger percentage, and if he looks into another Vote he will find that the super-cut is only £20,000 in a sum of £1,500,000. Therefore, no one can pretend that it has anything to do with the percentage basis over the total Vote. What has it go to do with the total Vote, and who is the person responsible for doing it? That was the question, Sir Robert, about which there was a dispute when your predecessor was in the Chair. Am I to understand that the procedure is as follows: The Minister puts up his Estimate, and then of his own free will decides to cut off £38,000. This is really a matter of some interest to the Committee because, in spite of the Minister's allusions to what happened last year, of which I have not such a lively recollection as he appears to have, if one looks
into the main Estimate for this year, on page 15, Class VII (4), there is nothing in the line, which this year shows a super-cut of £38,000, indicating a super-cut in 1929. I do not know to what the Minister was alluding. I have not the faintest idea. If he would clear up that matter, it would be one good thing rescued out of a somewhat prolonged Debate.
The Minister should recognise that the Committee have good grounds for complaint, because we have an additional Estimate to the tune of £85,000, making a grand total of £727,000. In 1929, the grand total was £550,000, and this year, with the main Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate, there is a big increase. That is one reason why we pay so much attention to the details of this Estimate. After all, if an Estimate goes up from £550,000 to £727,000 in 12 months, it requires a good deal of explanation, and I hope that the Minister will be good enough to let us know a little more about this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) wanted to make his position clear, but one of the reasons was, I imagine, that there is a new Employment Exchange being put up at Woolwich. A specific sum of £10,000 is required for these proposed works, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was not at all lucid in his explanation. Particulars are given in page 28 in the main Estimate where it says:
Provision of improved accommodation for Employment Exchanges as required.
Neither in his remarks on the main Estimate nor in his speeches to-day has he given the slightest inkling as to where these Exchanges are being put up. It is not as if the Minister had not considerable detail. After all, in the earlier part of the description of the works in progress there is mention of no less than 75, and there are six buildings under proposed works, and when we come to insurance buildings, about which not very much has been said, there are only two—one in progress, and one proposed—works. Therefore, we should like to know whether the improved accommodation, for which £35,000 was originally taken and for which an extra £10,000 is required, relates to those building's.
The hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) asked about Bristol. I could
not quite make out from the right hon. Gentleman what the answer to that really was. According to the Estimate, there are two buildings being put up in Bristol. My hon. Friend is particularly anxious to know about one of them. I understood from what he said that work was not going to be put in progress until June. If that is so, what is to happen to the money allocated for that Exchange? Is that included further to the £85,000 which is specifically shown in the Supplementary Estimate This is the sort of point which arises. It is a very curious fact that an extra £85,000 is required, and I know it will interest the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), because it is one thing in these Estimates to which he has always paid attention, namely, Appropriations in-Aid.

The CHAIRMAN: I see no appropriation under this Vote.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is just the trouble.

The CHAIRMAN: if that is so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order in referring to it. There is nothing in this Estimate under Appropriations-in-Aid, and, if there were, it would not be possible to discuss it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am sorry about that. The main Estimate does give a sub-head to them.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Member knows that we are not discussing the main Estimate, but are tied to the Supplementary Estimate.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I know we are very tied, Sir Robert, but in sub-heads A to N in the original Estimate, the £38,000 is scattered all over. I am sorry that I am not able to ask a question on that matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne will be more cunning and will be able to ascertain, if I may put it in this way, whether in view of the extra charges to which the Minister has been put through the extra expenditure on unemployment, he is not receiving any extra income? I understand that there is an arrangement by which certain proportions of expenditure are recoverable by the Office of Works from the Ministry of Labour for
the work that it does for that Department. Therefore, it seems to me that as there is an enormous increase in the number of the unemployed, jumping up from 1,100,000 to over 2,500,000, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be getting more back from the Ministry of Labour. The whole of his argument justifying the expenditure has been the abnormal and unexpected increase in the number of unemployed, and I want to know, although I cannot refer to points that are out of order, whether he has not received more back from the Ministry of Labour on that account. If so, he must have got mathematically—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is getting back to Appropriations-in-Aid when he asks what is being done in this way.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am asking what the right hon. Gentleman has done with the money.

Mr. LANSBURY: One Department does not go to another Department and say: "We have spent so much money for you; just hand it over." We carry out this work for and on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, and we come to the House to get the Vote sanctioned. As to how the Treasury and the Ministry of Labour arrange for the payment of the money, it is not my business.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am glad to know that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's business. I thought that everything dealing with buildings was his business. If that is not so, I apologise to him for questioning him in regard to something which is outside his purview. I am sorry that he does not know the amount of the sum involved. I have got the answer that I expected, and I will leave it at that. I come to my original question and ask the right hon. Gentleman where and by whom was the super-aut made?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have stated that three times already.

Captain CROOKSHANK: No. The figures that I have quoted have nothing to do with percentages and nothing to do with the weather, which applies whether the buildings are Labour, Health or Inland Revenue buildings. There is no special providence which guards one
kind of building. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how it has been done? I would remind him, as the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) pointed out, that although the sum is small, only £85,000, it is part of a big lot of Supplementary Estimates, 19 in number, costing £2,000,000. We have already had 17 Supplementary Estimates since the main Estimates were passed. Therefore, there are 36 supplementary sums which are required over and above what was anticipated. If that means anything, it means that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were extremely bad at estimating how much money they would require in the course of the year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss, when we remember what right hon. Members opposite do not seem to trouble much about, namely, the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us the parlous condition of the finances of the country. That is why we take exception to this particular Vote and—

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that he must keep to the Supplementary Estimate.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am a little suspicious about the change in wording which I perceive in this Supplementary Estimate. I know that these changes in wording are not usually made without good reason. I refer to the question of the super-cut. There is a change in the way in which the super-cut is described in the Supplementary Estimate this year. In previous years the super-cut was always made specifically on the itemised portion of the programme dealing with new works, and was described in the words
Deducted for work which may not be carried out during the year.
For the year 1929 there was a sum of £22,200 for Works Votes, and I think £2,000 for Insurance Votes.

Mr. LANSBURY: On page 15 of last year's Estimates, the words used are:
deduct for services which may not be carried out during the year £38,000.

Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. Are we in order in discussing the method under which this cut was made on the original Vote of last year?
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) was not allowed to proceed with his argument, and I showed some symptoms of wishing to debate it, but I was told by your predecessor that I could not do so. I submit that the ruling of the Chair was quite right, and that we cannot now discuss that method of deduction. The First Commissioner of Works has brought this upon his own head. There is no need for him to mention the £38,000 at all in this Estimate. What he ought to have done, but what he has not done, is to tell us on what the £38,000 has been spent. My point is that we cannot discuss the way in which the cut was made, but we can ask how the £38,000 has been spent. Is it for new works, or for furniture or rent?

The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) was referring to the main Estimate he was certainly not in order, and I was going to call him to order. We cannot discuss the cut now.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The point, surely, is that the £38,000 which is being voted has not been voted out of the list before. The First Commissioner of Works proposed to include the £38,000 before, but the Treasury came down with the axe or the bludgeon and knocked it out. He has been asked, but he has not told us, to what services he proposes to appropriate the £38,000. The point that I was putting, although it was only a point of wording, is that whereas in previous years these deductions have been made in respect of works that are not going to be carried out, this year for the first time for some unknown reason the wording is changed and the deduction is made in respect of services.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman ought to have made that point on the main Estimate.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am being asked to vote £38,000. In the original Estimate there was a deduction of £38,000 from the total, and under the sub-head in the Supplementary Estimate the reference is to services which may not be carried out during the year, and I have pointed out that there is a difference in the wording. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not a new
thing in the Supplementary Estimates, but I arm entitled to say that in previous years the reference has been to works whereas the present reference is to services.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman should have raised that point on the main Estimate. We cannot discuss that matter now, but the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask what the £38,000 is for.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will note that on the main Estimate next year I should like some explanation, because I am always suspicious about changes. I hope we shall be able to bring the discussion to an early conclusion by the right hon. Gentleman giving us the information for which we have asked.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want to intervene at this point if there are any hon. Members who wish to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I do not want it to be said later that there were other speakers who desired to take part before I replied. With respect to the £38,000, I was under the impression, and I leave the OFFICIAL REPORT to bear me out, that I said, in moving the Vote, that the money would be very largely spent on new works and on the acquisition of sites for new buildings, and so on. I also tried to explain, and I am extremely sorry if my want of explanatory powers made me not clear to hon. Members, that the cut that is made is not on any percentage basis at all, but on the basis of the general experience of the Department. It is not a question of bludgeoning by the Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with a point on which my predecessor ruled discussion out of order.

Mr. LANSBURY: The difficulty about this discussion is that so much has been out of order. I have been anxious to give hon. Members an opportunity of asking questions.

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that the £38,000 was mostly for new works and sites. If so, why was it not added to the 10,000 under sub-head A?

Mr. LANSBURY: It was put in its present position to show that it was a cut
from the general total of last year. It had to be shown in that way. The only other point of discussion is the question of rent, and whether we have bought British goods as far as possible or, failing British home-made goods, goods from the Dominions. Everyone acquainted with Government Departments for the last few years, must know that there is a Treasury Order, which we all have to carry out, in respect of the purchase of goods, that wherever possible and practicable we must buy British products or products from the Dominions. There is no question at all about that. The Committee will not expect me to give a long list of weekly tenancies here or monthly tenancies there; there are all kinds of tenancies, but the Committee may be quite sure that we are not hiring any premises that are unnecessary or taking them for an unnecessary period.

Mr. BRACKEN: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it must be because of the failure of his explanatory powers if it is not clear how this £38,000 is to be spent, he exaggerated a little. His explanatory powers are, in fact, a little too great, because even yet no Member of the Committee can tell where this £38,000 has gone. This is very important because we have the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that owing to the grave financial position of the country we cannot afford any large expenditure of public money. When we appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, out of his charity, to give us this information he burks the question. It would facilitate business if he would rise in his place and make a manly statement, such as he makes everywhere but in this House.

Captain GUNSTON: The Committee is entitled to some explanation. This £38,000 is nearly 50 per cent. of the Vote, and we are not given any details as to how the money is to be spent. In the Vote for maintenance and repairs we have the words:
Provision required for unforeseen services.
I can understand the words "unforeseen circumstances," but I do not know what these particular words mean. Under subhead E there is a provision for £25,000 for rents, a 20 per cent. increase on the original Estimate—a fairly large increase. I should like to know whether it is for rent in respect of buildings which form
part of the permanent structure, because I see that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for £10,000 more for permanent buildings, and the increase may therefore be greater than is apparent. The extra cost of furniture is 16 per cent. As we have an increase in unemployment of 60 per cent., and an increase for rents of 20 per cent., this increase for furniture is rather extravagant. Is there not a great deal of furniture already in the buildings which the right hon. Gentleman acquires and which he could utilise in order to keep the Estimate down? We all know that temporary accommodation is necessary, the sanitary arrangements are sometimes very unsatisfactory in many Employment Exchanges. I have had many complaints about this at the Kingswood Employment Exchange, outside Bristol, and I should like to ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is being given to this matter, especially in view of the great increase in the numbers of unemployed.

Mr. LANSBURY: There are a large number of Estimates to be considered, and I appeal to the Committee to let us have this Vote after I have tried once more to answer the questions which have been put to me. "Unforeseen services" include washing and cleaning, keeping the Employment Exchanges in order, perhaps adapting a temporary building, and you may have to put up partitions to provide accommodation for women. As regards furniture, there is no Department of State setter equipped and more anxious to watch expenditure than the Office of Works. I say that not because I am head of the Department, but to pay a tribute to the men who have to carry out the work. I am astonished at the detail into which they go on all these

matters, and I should not be so strong in asking the Committee to pass the Vote if I was not fully assured that the country will get full value for every penny it is asked to spend.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the number of persons under the Insurance Act at the moment?

Mr. LANSBURY: I believe there are about 10,000,000 insured persons at the moment.

Mr. SMITHERS: We have been told by the First Commissioner of Works that these Estimates were prepared and issued with the consent and advice of the Treasury, and I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question as to how these accounts are kept.

The CHAIRMAN: That question should have been raised on the main Estimate. It cannot be raised on a purely Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. SMITHERS: I want to ask a. question on the first item in the Vote—"New Works, Alterations, Additions and Purchases." If the Office of Works makes a purchase, is that amount written off, or is the building for which the money has been paid retained as an asset and the sum taken into the account? When the accounts are made up, is a valuation placed upon that asset at the end of the year?

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which hardly arises on this Estimate.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £84,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 237.

Division No. 165.]
AYES.
[6.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, E. T.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colfox, Major William Phillip
Fielden, E. B.


Boyce, Leslie
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bracken, B.
Cowan, D. M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cranborne, Viscount
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank. Capt. H. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Buchan, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Guinness Rt. Hon. Walter E
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencestar)
Somerset, Thomas


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, A. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hammersley, S. S.
O'Connor, T. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hanbury, C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Sir George
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Train, J.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lamb, Sir J. O.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Wells, Sydney R.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay).


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ross, Ronald D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, Sir John James


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Simms, Major-General J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Marjoribanks, Edward
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)



Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Middleton, G.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Sir George Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Duncan, Charles
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ede, James Chuter
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Angell, Sir Norman
Elmley, Viscount
Kinley, J.


Arnott, John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Kirkwood, D.


Aske, Sir Robert
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Knight, Holford


Attlee, Clement Richard
Freeman, Peter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Ayles, Walter
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lathan, G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Susan


Barnes, Alfred John
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Barr, James
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lawson, John James


Benn, Rt Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Glassey, A. E.
Leach, W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Benson, G.
Gray, Milner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Birkett, W. Norman
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Logan, David Gilbert


Bondfield, Rt, Hon. Margaret
Groves, Thomas E.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Longden, F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lowth, Thomas


Bromfield, William
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bromley, J.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Brooke, W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McElwee, A.


Brothers, M.
Hamliton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McEntee, V. L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hardle, George D.
McKinlay, A.


Buchanan, G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Burgess, F. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Cameron, A. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hayes, John Henry
March, S.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marcus, M.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Markham, S. F.


Clarke, J. S.
Herriotts, J.
Marley, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Marshall, Fred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hoffman, P. C.
Mathers, George


Compton, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Matters, L. W.


Cove, William G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Maxton, James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Horrabin, J. F.
Melville, Sir James


Daggar, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, Major J.


Dallas, George
Isaacs, George
Montague, Frederick


Dalton, Hugh
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Devlin, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.


Dukes, C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.




Muggeridge, H. T.
Sawyer, G. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Scott, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Scurr, John
Tillett, Ben


Oldfield, J. R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shaw, Rt Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tout, W. J.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Townend, A. E.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sherwood, G. H.
Vaughan, David


Palmer, E. T.
Shield, George William
Viant, S. P.


Perry, S. F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Walker, J.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Shinwell, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Pole, Major D. G.
Simmons, C. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Potts, John S.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Price, M. P.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
West, F. R.


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Snell, Harry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Romeril, H. G.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Rothschild, J. de
Stephen, Campbell
Wise, E. F.


Rowson, Guy
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Strauss, G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Sullivan, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T. Henderson.


Sanders, W. S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)



Sandham, E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)



Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

Mr. LANSBURY: This raises a subject about which we heard so much in the last discussion. It is not possible to particularise all the Services for which this money is asked. It certainly is not possible, when the Estimates are made up, to say that the whole of the expenditure will or will not take place during the year. This year we really have expedited work as far as possible, mainly to get the work done, of course, because always it is necessary work, but also in order to assist in some small way with the unemployment problem. But as the work was of a necessary character and would add to the efficiency of the various Departments, we expedited it as far as we could. That necessitates the £19,500 for which I am asking. I can only repeat that the whole of these Services were required, and that we could not have made up the Estimate, but we wanted to safeguard ourselves in
the way that the Departments have always safeguarded themselves. This is not an invention of the Office of Works.

Sir H. YOUNG: It is very fortunate that the Committee should so promptly have had such a striking example of the most regrettable and unsound state of affairs as a result of which the Committee of the House is brought by this procedure to restore a super-cut. I should say that this case is without example in the financial procedure of the House—that a Minister should come here and should have to tell the Committee that he is totally unable to give us any account of the purposes for which this money is to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman has my sympathy. In a way I think he is right; I think it is quite possible that he and his Department are quite incapable of telling us exactly for what the money is wanted. But I say that that is a state of affairs that ought to have been avoided.
I must put this matter, subject to the rules of Debate, that you, Sir Robert, have indicated—that we must not refer to the original Estimate and that this evening we can discuss only the actual restoration of the super-cut. Owing to the nature of this particular form of increased expenditure demanded the Minister is unable to give to the Committee any statement as to what the money is wanted for. That is a totally undesirable and improper state of affairs. The point
of view is this: The existence of the super-cut demands the most absolute rigidity of observance by Departments, because if it is not observed, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will explain to the Committee if we are allowed to hear him, it is possible for the Department and the Treasury completely to falsify the original Estimates. That is why it is so peculiarly grave that, when the Supplementary Estimate comes to us, we should be presented with it in. this form. I shall feel that there is a most dangerous looseness in financial control if on this occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not assure us that this has not became a practice and that the Committee in future is not to be asked by the Minister to pass expenditure of which he is totally incapable of giving details.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I had better answer the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It was raised by him on the last Vote and it shows that he is under an entire misapprehension. The facts are not as he has stated them; they are quite different. It is not that the Treasury has imposed on the Office of Works certain reductions or has said "You must make your expenditure in the year so much," and that during the year the Office of Works has disregarded the instruction given by some superior authority. That is not the position at all. The position is this: The Office of Works estimates that in the course of the year certain works, covering a great many different places and a great many different objects, are works which they expect to be able to complete. Over a considerable time in the past it has been found that unexpected conditions have arisen and have prevented the Office of Works carrying out what they had intended to do. In consequence of these unexpected conditions the actual money spent by the Office of Works has fallen short of what they had anticipated they would be able to spend, and fallen short of the sum which the House of Commons was perfectly willing to give them the opportunity of spending. In order to prevent the Estimates giving a misleading picture of the expenditure that might be incurred, it has become the practice during a great many years to deduct
amounts—I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the precise words—
in respect of services which might not be carried out during the year.
7.0 p.m.
So far as this particular Vote was concerned, that was done to the tune of £19,500. I would have the Committee observe that that was on a very considerable Vote of £1,151,000. The Committee can take one of two alternatives. It is obviously impossible for the Office of Works to be able to judge exactly how much work it will be able to carry out in a specific year. The Committee can, if it likes, vote the full amount every year, although there is a probability that that amount will not be expended; or it can adopt the course which the present Government, like other Governments, have adopted, and vote a sum which allows for the probability that the full amount will not be required. It has been found in years past that, through exceptional circumstances, the full amount has not been actually expended. In this particular year my right hon. Friend has been able to carry out, in regard to Revenue buildings, the full programme of building which he thought he might be able to do. In other words, his original Estimate has proved much more nearly correct. That is a matter on which we must congratulate him.
The idea which the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) has, that the Treasury imposed pressure, and that, in defiance of their wish, and in defiance of the wish of the Committee, he spent this £19,500, is not the fact. The fact is that none of the obstacles which might have prevented the work being done have occurred, and, therefore, it is possible for the Office of Works to do all that they originally estimated. In accordance with constitutional practice, we are coming to the House of Commons to get authorisation for spending up to the full programme which the Office of Works originally projected without the cut which was made when the Estimates were proposed.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not realised the full force of the criticisms which have been made. A new practice appears to be growing up which I am bound to take this opportunity of depre-
eating. The hon. Gentleman said he had not made a cut as a result of pressure from the Treasury at all, but as a growth of practice in past years. I know it is not due to the pressure of the Treasury, but it is partly due to the pressure of the Public Accounts Committee, which has pointed out year after year that the Department did not do so much work as they put down, and that it was not necessary to vote so much. This has been due to labour disputes or to difficulties of getting labour or material. This, however, is not the issue now. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise is that this £19,500 for which he is now asking has never been voted by the Committee. In the original Estimates this sum would have been distributed over 21 or 22 heads, and we would have known for what this money was being asked. In the old days, the deduction was always made from Sub-head A, the provision for new works. This spreading of the money over the whole of the Sub-heads from A to V and asking for it in a lump sum is really an innovation. These heads and sub-heads of the Vote have been made in order that the House may know clearly where the money was being distributed among the various heads. It was never intended that money should be asked for in a lump sum, yet in this Vote we have all the Sub-heads from A to V lumped together.
The Department are spending £19,500 more than we voted them, and they are asking for it in a lump sum. That is an unreasonable departure from the practice of the past. It is a small sum, but it might just as well be £190,000 or £1,500,000, and the Treasury must look into this matter. It is of the Treasury that I arm complaining. It ought not to come to the House and ask for large sums of money undistributed among the sub-heads in which the original Estimates were put forward. I hope the matter will be looked into. I do not see why this extra amount that is asked for is exactly the sum of the over-all deduction. They might have spent £19,000 or £20,000 more. Is it really the case that in the next month they are going to spend exactly the £19,500 which was deducted 12 months ago? What has happened is that they have made more progress with their work
than was expected, and they want money. They may want £10,000 or £15,000, but they ought to come to the House and ask for that extra amount distributed through the sub-heads of the amount already voted. I hope that in the future that will be done.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I do not like to find myself in disagreement with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I cannot congratulate him on having spent the whole total he is allowed to spend. Surely this is not the time in the nation's history for the hon. Gentleman to try to carry out, as he said, all the expenditure upon which, in certain contingencies, he thought it might be necessary to embark? On the last Vote we were told that the increased expenditure was due largely to the fact that there are more unemployed, which is a very good explanation, but here we are discussing Customs and Excise and, although the services are down and revenue is yielding less, we have this expenditure on revenue buildings. If the services are down, why should the expenditure on the buildings to house those services be up? Again, how is this super-cut arrived at?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have been absent from the Committee, or he would have known that the super-cut, or how it occurred, does not arise on this Vote.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I bow to your Ruling, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that all he was doing was to re-impose the super-cut.

The CHAIRMAN: That is quite a different thing from asking how the super-cut was arrived at.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I bow to your Ruling, of course, because I must. May I ask this question? The right hon. Gentleman allows in the main Estimate £140,000 for repairs and maintenance. Was it not possible for him to save this £19,500 out of that vast sum?

The CHAIRMAN: It might have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have saved out of that vast sum, but the question before the Committee is this £19,500. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask what that was spent on, and not what it could be saved on.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I am suggesting why the Committee should not vote this money and that, instead of asking for this £19,500, the right hon. Gentleman might have gone round his Department and made cuts. I am inviting him to look round it in the next few days and see if he could not save this sum.

The CHAIRMAN: If I allowed that, there are a number of other items on which similar questions could be put.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I would like to ask some questions in connection with the boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department, which are referred to in this Estimate. We are not told how much of this sum is spent in this way, and I wish to ask how much of it is spent on the employment, upkeep and repair of these boats and launches? Presumably, the Customs and Excise Department is buying new boats and launches and, as, owing to the very regrettable cuts in His Majesty's Service, His Majesty's Dockyards must be full of boats and launches which would be quite efficient and suitable for this work, I would suggest that any boats required should be obtained in this way, as that would bring about some economy. I suggest, too, that it might be possible to economise in this expenditure. In many cases, although it refers to launches, rowing boats would be sufficient. We would like an assurance that full use is made of rowing boats where they are sufficient for the purpose. Trade is very much down at the present time, and one would have imagined it was not necessary for the Customs and Excise Department to ask for an increased amount for their work. The number of boats used throughout the country for this Department must be very large in the aggregate, and an economy might be brought about where it is possible to use rowing boats instead of steam launches.

Mr. REMER: I was amazed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. I have always regarded him as one of the most intelligent Members of the Front Government Bench. That is not really paying him a very great compliment, because there is not a great deal of intelligence on that bench. Yet he made a speech which was almost an insult to this Committee. He gave us no explanation of
any kind, but told us that this was the usual practice, that he had no money at all, and finished up by telling us that the money for which he was asking would probably not be spent at all. In all my experience I have never heard a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench put forward such a "twopenny halfpenny" excuse for lack of knowledge of his Department. The Financial Secretary said one of the most amazing things that I have ever heard from a custodian of the public, purse in Committee of Supply. He told us that at the beginning of the year the Office of Works estimated the work which they would be able to carry out. Surely it is the duty of the Treasury at all times not to see what work can be carried out, but to see how much money can be saved. Surely it is their duty not to throw money away in bucketsful, as has been suggested, but to come forward with a sound practical scheme of economy and to ensure that every item of the national expenditure is closely scrutinised. I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he made his remarks of this evening, because I have a vivid recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making certain observations—

The CHAIRMAN: There has been a good deal of repetition in the speeches on these Estimates already and I would ask the hon. Member not to indulge in repetition. At the same time I wish to call his attention to the fact that this is a definite Estimate for a sum of £19,500.

Mr. REMER: I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been consulted in view of his statement recently that every item of expenditure must be carefully scrutinised. I wish to know if this item has been scrutinised.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must assume that these Estimates have been issued with the authority of the Treasury.

Mr. REMER: If that be the case, then I very much deplore the method by which these Estimates come before this Committee. We have heard to-day, in the plainest terms, from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is no scrutiny of any kind.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE indicated dissent.

Mr. REMER: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to deal with the point but the fact is that on the main Estimate there was a reduction of £19,500. The arrangement was that this sum of £19,500 was picked out and the Department was told, "This is the money you must save." Now the hon. Gentleman comes forward on behalf of the Treasury and actually boasts that they have been able to spend this money. I think it is the duty of every Minister, in the crisis through which we are passing, to try to save every possible penny. I believe that in this matter the Government have been negligent in not scrutinising this item and have once again shown themselves to be absolutely incompetent to occupy the Treasury Bench.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This Vote comprises two distinct things—first the buildings which are used for the purposes of the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise, and, secondly, the buildings used by the Post Office. There is a marked distinction between them, because the Inland Revenue buildings are a part of the ordinary machinery of Government, whereas the Post Office is practically a self-contained entity standing on its own legs as far as revenue and expenditure are concerned and presenting its own accounts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) and I have been pursuing the Office of Works for many years on the subject of the presentation of these accounts. We thought that we were getting within sight of the desired objective, hut now we find all the ground that we had gained, taken away by this method of a lump allocation. I will not pursue that point but I wish the right hon. Gentleman would, at least, indicate if this £19,500 is to be spent on buildings for the Post Office, or on buildings for the Customs and Inland Revenue.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As I exercised great patience with the Minister on the previous Estimate, in refraining from putting some of the questions which I had for him, in regard to it, perhaps he will excuse me if I raise certain points on this Estimate. The Minister stated
that this £19,500 was due to the efficiency of the Department; that they had been able to expedite certain work, and, for that reason, were compelled to ask for this money. He did not, however, indicate on which of the various branches of the Department this sum was expended. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was doing his best to explain this matter and I recognise his difficulty but I had hoped that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would have been able to tell us precisely on what this money has been spent. The Financial Secretary, however, merely said that the full programme of work had been carried out.
In other words, the Financial Secretary, who is supposed to be keeping down expenditure, was boasting that this sum had been spent because the Government had been as wasteful as they could be. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"] I think the hon. Gentleman's statement was that the full programme had been carried out and that there had been no delay in spending this money. This is a very important sum of money, not so much on its own account as on account of the other items dependent upon it. If this were the only occasion on which the Financial Secretary was going to ask us to waste money, it might be possible to overlook it, but this is only one of many items of this kind, and all that we have been able to extract out of two speeches from the Government Front Bench is that they boast of having expended this money. It has possibly been spent in some totally useless and incompetent way. It must be so, otherwise they would tell us at once of instances of the way in which it has been expended. But they are keeping that in the background. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) wants row boats—

The CHAIRMAN: I have been looking at the original Estimate, and I can find nothing in it covering the question of boats.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Estimate before the Committee only relates to such matters as the supply of ropes and so forth for boats and launches.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: On a point of Order. Is it not perfectly clear from the Estimate itself that part of this expenditure is for the purchase of boats?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will notice that it is for "certain expenses in connection with boats and launches," but I cannot find any item for boats and launches in the original Estimate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was not quite sure myself how the connection with boats arose, but, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has introduced the question of ropes, perhaps he will tell the Committee the precise material of which these ropes are made, and where they are manufactured, and other matters in connection with these launches.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the question of launches does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was most particular to use the words "in connection with launches," and I think that is covered by the Estimate. However, will leave the launches and go back to the more important point about this expenditure of £19,500. I wish to know what proportion of this sum, if any, has been definitely spent on the Customs and Inland Revenue. How much of this money is being spent in the collection of taxes, and how much in the provision of buildings for the Post Office and telegraph services? I think that the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of the Committee, ought to have divided this sum into sub-heads, and I should like a definite answer on those points.

Captain CAZALET: I have always looked upon the First Commissioner of Works, certainly, as being one of the most benign Members of the Cabinet, but in asking us to accept the statement which he has made to-night he is asking too much. Here we have an Estimate exceeded by 2 per cent., and the right hon. Gentleman says in effect "I am afraid I cannot tell you how the money has been spent." I agree that it is difficult to explain. There are some 20 subheads and this sum may have been expended on one of them, or it may have been divided between the other 19. We do not know; we cannot tell. But I believe I am right in saying that this is a totally new method of presenting Estimates. The Financial Secretary said that because he had spent more money it was a matter on which the Committee ought to congratulate the First Com-
missioner. If the right hon. Gentleman had made a saving on the original Estimate there would have been reason for congratulation. But surely he cannot ask us to accept the present position without a protest. Surely, this is the very kind of small extravagance which it is the primary duty of the Government to curb and check. We must protest in the name of the taxpayers of the country against this loose method of spending money and presenting accounts.

Major DAVIES: I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments so ably advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) but I would like to point out to the Committee the situation in which we find ourselves on this Estimate. You, Sir Robert, have ruled that we are entitled to inquire why this money is being asked for, and on what is it being spent. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Estimate said that all he could tell us was that the sum was necessary, and that there was no good asking him what it was for. That attitude stultifies the whole work of this Committee on Supplementary Estimates. Following the Ruling of the Chair on the matter, we are asking what this additional sum is required for, and there are certain items on which I am anxious to get certain information, as to whether this additional expenditure is directed to this particular part of the Estimate or not.
My right hon. Friend below me has already drawn attention to the fact that the service of Customs and Excise is in an entirely different category from that of the Post Office. As a representative of a rural constituency, I have been very much interested in the policy of the Government in its extension of postal facilities in the more widely scattered areas, and I want to know whether any of that additional sum has been expended in following up more rapidly what I think we all agree is a sound policy, namely, the speeding up of the provision of facilities in the rural areas. The Post Office buildings themselves are used very largely for telephone purposes, and while that word is not used in the Estimate, and possibly it might be out of order to pursue that particular facility, undoubtedly there are many cases where postal facilities are a long distance away from certain of the smaller villages and hamlets.
When the original Estimate was introduced, the Postmaster-General said it would be part of the policy of his Department, as it had been that of his predecessor, and I want to know therefore whether any of this additional expenditure has been incurred in this direction, because, if so, I support the request for a Supplementary Estimate, not only because it is being spent in what I consider a very desirable direction, but because expenditure under that heading is revenue-producing expenditure, which remark cannot possibly apply to Customs and Excise or indeed to the rope for which the right hon. Gentleman asks us, for some purpose which he is unable to specify.
With regard to certain post offices abroad, that is rather a remarkable inclusion here. How does it come about that post offices abroad, which are obviously outside the Empire, are a charge and therefore demand a Supplementary Estimate in this House? I think we are entitled to know which foreign post offices—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask whether any of this amount is being spent for that purpose, but not to ask about post offices abroad.

Major DAVIES: I think you misunderstood me, Sir Robert. I was asking whether any of this money has been spent on post offices abroad. We are very much confined in our discussion, because of the lump sum way in which the Estimate is brought in, and I am afraid that we shall merely get the reply again, "You must take our word that this money is necessary, but we do not know what it is for." That is not the way in which to present Supplementary Estimates, and I wish to add my protest in regard to the way in which this expenditure has been brought before the Committee.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will try to make the position a little clearer. It is suggested by one hon. Member that I said that the Treasury had used no attempt to cut down the Estimate, had used no effort to see that an undue expenditure was not incurred. The Treasury go into every Estimate with the most meticulous care to see that any Department—and the Department of my right hon. Friend is an example—does not
spend one penny more in carrying out a necessary piece of work than it ought to spend. Therefore, the Treasury in conjunction with the Department, fixes the total sum which a job is going to cost, and the reason why we are confronted with a difficulty in this particular case is because of the way in which Estimates are presented to the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But that is a practice which is constitutional. The practice in this House is not to show a kind of profit-and-loss account, but to deal with a particular year.
There are buildings required, say, for Customs and Excise. Some particular building may be going to cost £100,000, and it has been the practice for centuries to present to the House of Commons the amount of expenditure that will come within the 12 months from the 1st April in one year to the 31st March in the next year in respect of that £100,000. Whether a particular building is going to cost £100,000 or £90,000 all complete is a matter of real economy, but whether of the £100,000 or £90,000, £70,000 is going to be spent this year and £20,000 or £30,000 next year, on the one hand, or whether £75,000 is going to be spent this year and £15,000 or £25,000 next year, is a matter, not of economy at all, but of whether the job is done within the 12 months or whether some of it or more of it is postponed. The hon. Member shakes his head, but he cannot understand the elements of work of this kind. The point as to whether we spend the full amount in one year or whether a part of it is postponed to another year is not a matter of economy but of whether the job is carried through in the 12 months to the full extent anticipated or not.
Whether it is desirable to carry through these jobs to the full extent may be a matter of opinion, but at a time when we are pressing municipalities and all kinds of public bodies to press on with work, which some of them are rather loath to do, to suggest that that is a time when work which is necessary and has been scheduled to be done should be delayed does not seem to me, to be an argument worth listening to. The House of Commons, by passing the original Estimate, has sanctioned to the full the items of expenditure incurred. The Office of Works has sanctioned the principle of that expenditure and also
a particular amount of the whole, on the principle that some of these must be carried out in the year. Therefore, we come a second time to the House of Commons for sanction to spend the full programme in the year. It is not possible, therefore, to single out any one particular item and to say that that £19,500 is being spent on this and not on the other.
The answer to that question is that the full programme which was foreseen when the original Estimate was presented is being undertaken, and my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) is that the full programme anticipated by the Post Office is being spent, and he can rest assured therefore that the cut made in the Post Office, as also in other Services, will not hold with regard to the Post Office. Therefore, it is true to say that a part at any rate of this £19,500 is being spent on the work which, I understand, he wishes to see promoted. The cut which might have occurred owing to work being held up has not been brought into effect, and the work has proceeded to the full extent. Therefore, we come back to the House of Commons, having first sanctioned the principle of these items and secured the whole amount, with the exception of £19,500, to secure the Committee's sanction for the remainder. I hope the Committee will now give us the Vote.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman still appears to misunderstand the position taken up by my hon. Friends and myself and, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). It is not that I object to the Office of Works bringing forward Supplementary Estimates. On the contrary, I have said before now that that is rather a virtue, because it enables the Office of Works to budget more closely, and accordingly more money than is required is not raised from the taxpayer in any given financial year. That is the crucial point to which we have addressed our criticisms in previous years. We have to consider the taxpayer first, and I am not complaining of the existence of a Supplementary Estimate at all. I am complaining that, having adopted this salutary practice, this year for the first time, instead of directly referring to this Vote in one way or another, by using this word
"service" you then lump the whole Vote into one set of items, and, when asked to indicate what the £19,500 means, you are unable to do so.
That is really a departure, and a bad departure, and I certainly hope the Treasury will not pursue it again. If these items had been in the main Estimate, you would have had to specify them in black and white, but I trust that you will not be able to get away with it without specifying the items. My point is that these items have not been specified, and we are now told that they cannot be specified, and there appears to be some doubt even as to whether they belong to the Post Office or to the Inland Revenue.

Major COLFOX: Has any of this money been spent? If it has, it makes a farce of our financial procedure. The Committee votes that a sum not exceeding a certain amount should be allocated, but I believe that the sum voted has been exceeded; and now the Government comes to the Committee for authority for money which they have already spent. That is an absolute farce, and, if there were no other reason, that would be amply sufficient for refusing to grant this supplementary sum. I want to make another attempt to get some kind of answer to the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Major Davies), whether any of this money is being spent, or will be spent, on the improvement of rural telephone facilities. Obviously, rural telephones require Post Office buildings in which to be accommodated.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I am afraid that rural telephones have nothing to do with this Vote.

Major COLFOX: I do not see any point of Order arises. Post Office buildings come under the Vote which we are discussing, and so do foreign Post Offices, which were referred to during the time that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to absent himself from the Chamber, Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that this is another point which has been left unanswered by him or anybody else. We have also had no reply on the subject of roads, which he told us was included in the Vote. I have always looked upon the right hon. Member as an optimist, though an unthink-
ing optimist. The way in which he presented this Vote proves that he is a great optimist, because he apparently imagined that by making a few discursive remarks he would convince hon. Members on this side that this sum of £19,000 was urgently required. At this time, of all others, when it is sufficiently obvious to every intelligent person who takes the least interest in national safety and the position of industry, that all Government spending must be curtailed in the interests of the country, the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Committee with an Estimate for the further spending of Government money without any argument or reason to show the necessity for doing so. It is bringing the whole state of affairs to the level of a farce, and I hope that he will not be allowed this money.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I was interested to hear that most of this money is to be spent on the Post Office, but I question the way in which it is spent because of a dangerous speech by the Postmaster-General, who said that a large sum is to be spent on beautifying the post offices. In rural areas some of the post offices are badly arranged, and the interiors are such that nobody can speak on the telephone in private. In some instances, the telephone is in the kitchen of the post office, where anybody can hear what is said. I suggest that some of the money could be used, if it has to be used, in putting up sound-proof telephone call-boxes in rural post offices. I have an instance, which I am sending to the Postmaster-General, where certain business has to be carried on, and where it can be heard by anybody in the village who likes to listen. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to spend the money in putting these things in order, there is something to be said for the expenditure. But the country is not in a position to have money wasted on what the Postmaster-General calls beautifying the post offices.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will take care to convey the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion to the Postmaster-General.

ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am glad that the subject matter of the last two discussions does not come under review on this Vote. This is entirely a new Vote, and it is for two purposes. One is the provision of work for the unemployed. Each year for many years past a sum of money has been voted in this way. It is used for work on improving the amenities of the parks. The Committee, the country in general, and London in particular, are very proud of the parks which indirectly come under the jurisdiction of this House, and the works that are carried out, whether they consist of making roads, cleaning out pools, or thinning out and lopping trees, is only undertaken on the advice of our skilled advisers. The condition of our parks proves that these men are worthy of our confidence and support. In addition to the ordinary work on paving, tarring, fencing, lakes and ponds, the removal of dead trees, the relaying of drains, etc., there is an extra piece of work which we propose doing in Hyde Park. We are spending £1,050 to improve the drainage at the bathing pavilion near the Serpentine. This was very much needed. The greater part of the expenditure applies to London parks, but £4,340 is being set apart for Scotland, where we have the Botanical Gardens, the park at Linlithgow, and the park of the Royal Palace at Holyrood. The number of men to whom we have given employment on this relief work is 566 for a period of 26 weeks.

Earl WINTERTON: I rise because I take a considerable interest in the maintenance and repair of the Royal Parks. This appears to be a new Vote. That is to say, in the original Estimates under Sub-head G.G., nothing was allowed for unemployment relief works in 1930, although in 1929 the House voted £33,770, which is slightly less than the sum asked for to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has not explained why, in the original Estimate, no allowance was made for the
money which was to be spent on unemployment relief works. I do not specifically complain of that, although I should have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentleman why no allowance was made. I presume that the answer will be that it was not until later in the year that the right hon. Gentleman was able to say the amount that was to be spent, and that he therefore decided not to put it in the original Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY: The reason was that we had a fairly large sum of £208,000 for all services, and, at the time we made the Estimate, we felt that we might possibly do without an amount under the head this year. We found as time went on, however, and on further consideration, that there was a considerable amount of work for which we should not be able, as we were last year, to raise the money voluntarily, and we have had to come to Parliament.

8.0 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not complain of it, but I suggest that in future years it will be better to allow a further sum under Sub-head G.G. for maintenance and repairs, rather than provide for it by Supplementary Estimates. To those who take a genuine interest in the maintenance of the parks, it is a great advantage to know the exact sum which is being spent under this Vote on each park. Though it is actually in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions as to how the money is allocated, it is not convenient to do so, and I do not want to take up time in asking him, but that £42,000 is allocated among numerous parks. Nine or ten are included in the original Vote. I was glad to hear that the money is to be spent in ordinary maintenance and not on any fresh schemes, because I am always a little suspicious when the right hon. Gentleman enters upon fresh schemes for beautifying the parks. I am sure no one desires to re-open the rather unpleasant controversy into which we were plunged last year, and if you will permit me, Sir, though I am afraid I am technically out of order, I would like to express my personal thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy he showed to me in sending me a number of interesting documents, in particular the one on the bird question. I
wish to ask whether some of this money cannot be spent in providing proper protection for the bird sanctuaries in Hyde Park. I am assured that at present they are not protected from the depredations either of the human boy or of the domestic cat. In Battersea Park one sees a great deal more bird life than in Hyde Park. In Hyde Park and in Kensington Gardens there is a growing decrease of thrushes and blackbirds, whereas any visitor to Battersea Park in the Spring of the year will be delighted with the chorus of song from the birds. I was told by one of the keepers in Hyde Park that there is nothing to prevent people landing from boats and doing damage to the bird sanctuary on the banks of the Serpentine, or to prevent cats from getting in. We might have wire netting with what is known as a "turnover" at the top placed on the landward side of the bird sanctuary, and that, I am told, would prevent cats getting into the enclosure. I am glad to hear that money is being spent in re-draining some of the ornamental waters. If the bathing in Hyde Park is to be a success, the water will have to be kept clean. There have been suggestions in the past that the water was not sufficiently clean to make bathing safe from a health point of view.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I apologise to the First Commissioner of Works for casting a possibly unfair burden on his voice, seeing that he is suffering from a cold; and before I go further I would like to join with the Noble Lord in expressing my affection for the right hon. Gentleman and for the great assistance he has been to many of us who care for the Royal Parks. If I am in order, I would also like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his recent birthday. I hope he will be spared for many years, not as First Commissioner of Works, but in any capacity that will give him the happiness of his home and good health and the goodwill of his friends. I have every hope that in 10 years' time or so, when the right hon. Gentleman has shed all his frivolities in the matter of bathing ponds, Lido pools and the like, he will make a very good First Commissioner of Works; and I hope that with the care which we shall always exercise over him, and the constant advice we give him, he
will eventually become a credit to his party and a great asset to the Royal Parks. Whatever his faults, the right hon. Gentleman has enthusiasm and ideas and a certain constructive determination, and it is such a relief to find that in a Member of the Government that I give him every credit for it. Long may he sit on the Front Bench, even though his ideas are misdirected, even though his constructive purposes are in the wrong channel.

The CHAIRMAN: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member in paying these compliments, but I must point out that they bear no relation to the Vote which is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am sorry, but I was merely trying to do some little justice to the right hon. Gentleman who so happily and so successfully sits on the Front Bench. I have felt during the afternoon that very little real consideration has been shown for the magnificent efforts, I do not say successful, which the right hon. Gentleman has made to make the parks a happier and a jollier place for some people. There are one or two points on which I wish the right hon. Gentleman would make his ideas clear. When his Estimates were under consideration last year he put forward certain ideas which have now become actual facts, but he said then that if those visions which he had of the future of the Royal Parks did not actually materialise he would be perfectly willing to reconsider what had been done in the light of experience and would be the first person to acknowledge his mistakes. He has still the youth to do that, and to rectify them as far as possible. There are certain mistakes which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that he will try to correct them before long. In particular, I refer to the paddle-boat ponds for the children.

The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with a particular item relating to relief works for the unemployed, and I do not think the paddle-boat ponds come under it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Yes. The unemployed have been occupied in the work of constructing these ponds.

The CHAIRMAN: This year?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Regent's Park, it does not come under this Estimate, because the pond there was paid for out of money which I raised voluntarily.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That is one of the points which we have been trying to ascertain—where the money was actually expended. As we have not had that information I had to assume that part of it was given to Regent's Park.

Mr. LANSBURY: Since the Noble Lord finished speaking I have been able to obtain the figures which were asked for. These are the approximate figures of expenditure—I do not say they are right to a pound or two: In the central parks, that is, Hyde Park, the Green Park and St. James's Park, £7,900; Richmond Park, £4,000; Hampton Court and Bushey Park, £9,000 Greenwich, £6,000; Regent's Park, £6,000.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I can assume that £6,000 of the amount we are discussing was actually spent in the relief works to which I have referred?

Mr. LANSBURY: In Regent's Park? Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I speak for Regent's Park particularly, because I know it so well, living near it, and I take a great interest in the poor people in the vicinity. There is one point about the paddle-boat ponds on which I wish to register an objection. They were constructed to allow children to enjoy boating in little paddle-boats, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that they were to be for poor children. What has happened? The pond there has been handed over to a capitalistic monopoly, a licencee who charges, mark you, at the rate of Id. per minute to these poor children. I should explain that that charge has reference to the little motorboats; the charge is less for the rowboats, being 4d. for half-an-hour. With these charges in force poor children are unable to enjoy the ponds, and I suggest that we, as a democratic House of Commons, ought not to allow that unfair treatment of these poor children to continue. Knowing the affection of the right hon. Gentleman for children, I hope he will break this capitalistic monopoly and
give these poor children three free days a week, so that they can thoroughly enjoy themselves on those ponds instead of, as now, having to hang round asking for money to pay for a boat or go without a boat altogether. Another thing on which this money has been spent is the construction of the toy-boat pond. I do not know whether they exist in other parks, but there is one in Regent's Park. It was constructed for the purpose of allowing small children to sail toy-boats, but the trouble is that there is no water in the pond.

Mr. LANSBURY: That does not come under this Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There is no water in the pond, and when there is water in it it is so filthy that the children develop diseases, from which, so their mothers tell me, they very rarely recover. There are two of these ponds at the moment, and I believe he contemplates more—he has got a deep mind—and I suggest that he should take the paddle-boat pond away from its present site, where it is an eyesore to the community, and plant it beyond the big pond in Regent's Park.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the Minister's statement, and am not quite sure what is included in this sum. This money is required to relieve unemployment, and unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to expenditure included in this sum for the purposes he has raised it cannot be discussed now.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: You and I are in agreement, Sir; this is part of the money which we are voting to-night.

Mr. LANSBURY: No. On a point of Order. I have already told my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not so. The matters to which he is referring do not come within this Vote. We are spending no money on paddle-boat ponds in Regent's Park.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us for what parks this money was required.

Mr. LANSBURY: This comes of the right hon. Gentleman not being here. I have just read out a list of the parks in which the money is to be spent.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I was here and I took down the list—Hyde Park, Green Park and St. James's Park, £7,900 and the rest. I have a fairly accurate note of it.

Mr. LANSBURY: Then I have given the right hon. Gentleman the information.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What I want to say is that at the beginning we did not have this information. After a certain amount of going to and fro between the Minister's private secretary and the officials under the Gallery we were given this information. That information was given to us, and we were told that the £6,000 was in respect of Regent's Park. I think it is very awkward to be pulled up on these points after we ascertained, first of all, that the subject about which hon. Members are speaking is in the particular park in respect of which £6,000 is being expended.

Mr. LANSBURY: I commenced the discussion by explaining the kind of work which was being carried out in the parks generally. I did not read out anything about paddle ponds or small ponds. All that I did, in response to the request made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), was to give an approximate figure of what was being expended in each park.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not spending any money on the paddle ponds this year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If there is no money for that purpose in this Vote, then it cannot be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY: The list of works dealt with in this Vote are:
Additions and alterations to paths, painting or tarring hurdles, fences, shin-rails, etc.
Cleaning out and weeding lakes, ponds and streams.
Removal of dead trees and timber and replanting.
Relaying land drains where necessary and laying additional drains.
Attention to under-growth, replanting in shrubberies and plantations.
Restoring grass areas and games grounds.
Digging and screening gravel for use on roads and paths.
That is work for all the parka, and not for one park.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. I want to refer to the training of shrubs and pruning. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has employed as many of the unemployed as possible in the past, but I think there are certain conditions which he should observe, and one is to see that, as far as possible, the men employed are able to carry out efficiently the work on which they are put. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that there are many unemployed men with no more idea of how to prune a tree than I have. I do not blame the unemployed, because they cannot help it, but I do blame the supervisors, who do not provide proper instructors or overseers in the parks to ensure that the pruning is properly done. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, if he does employ men who do not understand this kind of work, should place men over them who have been trained in the work, and upon whom he can rely. I do not know whether I should be out of order in raising the question of the speed limit in the parks. I notice that for the purpose of carrying out the speed limit regulations one sergeant and two constables are employed.

Mr. LANSBURY: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that not a single penny in this Estimate is for that purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that many of the people with whom he comes into contact are not always directly interested in the parks as such. They do not live around the parks or spend their vacant time in them. Therefore, I think it is the public who enjoy the amenities of the parks—the young people who do their courting there, the children who play in the parks, and others who use them in other ways—who should have some say as to how this expenditure produces amenities for them. That is why I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should have a committee to guide, advise and instruct him in regard to what the parks really represent to
the people and what the people need. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's Department supplied him with an answer with which he did not agree, but I do make this suggestion for his consideration. I know that he, with his democratic sympathies, will agree that we in London who use and care for the parks should have some say as to the manner in which they should he administered.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is always the danger, in connection with these Supplementary Estimates, that the discussion is apt to get too general. In some cases a, more or less general discussion may be allowable on questions such as a new service or when the amount of money asked for is a very large sum; but this is not a case in which I feel that I can allow a general discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept your Ruling with great pleasure, because, as I have often said, it saves me trouble by shortening a speech which might otherwise drift to too great a length. I will only say, with regard to that point, that I will leave it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, knowing that he will deal with it with sympathy and understanding. I should like to say that we who are interested in the parks have a feeling of resentment when we see strangers from other parts of London brought in to do relief works that may be necessary in these parks. On two or three occasions I have spoken to unemployed workmen in these parks, and have found that they did not come from the immediate vicinity. I have also discussed the matter with unemployed men in the vicinity, and they feel very sore that they, whose children use and love the parks, should not be employed to do the work of maintaining those parks. The right hon. Gentleman will make for a great deal of ease of mind on the part of those who live in the neighbourhoods surrounding the parks if he will employ these men to do the necessary maintenance work, rather than bringing in from other parts of London strangers who have no particular interest in or love for the particular park in question. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman because I know his sincerity, his constructive ability, his zeal and his enthusiasm, and it breaks my heart to see those qualities diverted into wrong and non-constructive channels. I think that if he
would, perhaps, withdraw himself into some peaceful surroundings, where he could meditate on what I have said and the advice which I have given to him, it would be for the permanent advantage of the Royal parks in London.

Mr. HARDIE: I understand that this Estimate is for unemployment relief works in Royal parks or pleasure gardens, and that we are not discussing what is produced by this expenditure, but the employment of unemployed men or women. This sum includes what is to be spent in Scotland, which I see is only one-tenth of the total. If, however, there is any argument for using money to relieve unemployment, it should be on the basis of the distress in each area. The unemployment percentage in London is very much smaller than in Glasgow. Why is it, then, since this expenditure is for the relief of unemployed people, that areas such as Glasgow, which are suffering mare than London from unemployment, have not received the major portion of this money? I could understand it if this had been a question of providing pleasure grounds or improving parks, but that is not the object; the object is to give relief work to unemployed men. In Glasgow we have our Botanic Gardens, to which this Estimate applies, and there is the famous Holy-rood in Edinburgh. In Edinburgh and in Glasgow the percentage of unemployed is such that there is practically no comparison with London. I hope that the First Commissioner will get to understand just what is meant by the Botanic Gardens to a place like Glasgow. London is more fortunate in its open spaces, even on the basis of population—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the Botanic Gardens at Glasgow are a Royal park or not. If they are not, to discuss it is out of order.

Mr. HARDIE: They are in the list which the First Commissioner read out.

Mr. LANSBURY indicated assent.

Mr. HARDIE: If we look to the question of real unemployment relief in relation to numbers, and if we wish for a more emphatic argument as to the need for more area, we can find that argument in the congested areas of cities like Glasgow, and it seems to me that it is in such places that this money should be
spent. The natural beauties of a situation like Holyrood are something than cannot be improved upon, and the Palace of Linlithgow also is in a fortunate situation, but when you come down into the industrial belt, to places like Glasgow, you not only have a greater number of unemployed, but you have a greater necessity for the expenditure of money. Really, the position ought to be reversed; the £4,300 ought to be spent in London, and the remainder in Scotland. I think the Committee will agree that, where the figures are so high as they are in these areas of Scotland, consideration should be given on that ground, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able in same way to review the allocation of this sum so that Scotland may be given a bigger share.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I should like to refer to a subject which has been criticised in this House on one or two previous occasions when we have been dealing with a Vote of this kind. I intend to keep my remarks well within the bounds of order, and only to deal with work which at any rate appears to be done, at the present time by the unemployed in the London parks. Of course, it is rather difficult for an ordinary uninstructed observer to differentiate exactly between an unemployed man and a man who is normally employed in the park, but, as a result of my observations, it certainly looks as if some of the men who are doing the work which I am now going to criticise belong to the category which one calls the unemployed. The subject that I wish to raise is that of planting trees in the parks, and the series of events which have led up to that planting.
It seems to me that a mistake is being made in not planting trees which are suitable to the soil and the locality. There is also rather a tendency to plant what I may call specimen trees rather than large groups of the trees which we have for long been accustomed to look upon as typically English. One of the most picturesque trees that one sees is the elm, but its very picturesqueness has led to its destruction. It has the unfortunate habit of throwing out very heavy boughs and, until quite recently, one of the works which the unemployed were doing in the parks was to lop off the lower branches because they had become dan-
gerous. In localities which at times are as crowded with pleasure seekers and children as the London parks, notably Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, it would be asking for trouble to leave branches which were in any way dangerous. I am told by experts in forestry that it is almost impossible to detect from external appearance when a branch has really become dangerous and, therefore, it has become necessary to lop and very severely disfigure a certain number of these trees. To replace them a good deal of planting has been going on.
I have looked carefully at some of the young trees which have been put in. A large number of them are elms. Therefore, in two or three hundred years time we shall have the same series of circumstances arising as are arising at present. I admit that that will not affect the right hon. Gentleman any more than it will affect me, but, at the same time, I think we ought to have a certain regard for posterity. I think it is rather a mistake to replace trees of a similar character, especially when we have among the English forest trees trees of equal beauty which are longer lived and are of such a character that it would not be necessary to disfigure them for the safety of the general public. There is the lime. We have a number of specimens in the parks, but, as far as I can make out from the planting that has been going on, very few lime trees have been planted by the unemployed, and I think that they would add to the beauty of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. We could not have anything more beautiful than an avenue of lime trees. The same applies to the horse chestnut. There is no more beautiful thing in the world that the horse chestnut flower, but I cannot find out that the unemployed have been put to work planting horse chestnut trees. Specimen trees have been planted here and there. There is the hornbeam, and, I think, a certain number of conifers. Those are naturally exotic trees which one cannot expect to flourish—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to discuss the character of the trees planted, but I can visualise in the next two or three hours going the round of all the trees in the forest. That would obviously be an abuse. When the annual Estimates
come up, a speech of that character would be quite in order, but I think it is rather trespassing beyond the usual ruling.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will say nothing more on the subject of trees. My Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) referred to the bird sanctuary in the north eastern corner of the Serpentine. There is no doubt that many of these wild aquatic birds, if given a fair chance of a sanctuary undisturbed by the local youth and the local cat, would breed there, to the great pleasure and great enjoyment of many thousands of Londoners who do not get an opportunity of studying bird life. I have seen during the past winter five or six kinds of aquatic birds which one does not normally expect to find in the centre of a city like London—the wild duck, the teal, the widgeon and the sheldrake.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Are these things in the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. LANSBURY: There is nothing in the Estimate to do with birds.

Sir A. LAMBERT-WARD: I will only say I hope some of this money will be expended on fencing the bird sanctuary in such a way that it will be a real sanctuary and not merely an enclosed piece of ground which is a hunting ground far the local cat and on which boating parties may land.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The bounds of Order are a little difficult to ascertain this evening. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with ponds in various parks, but, when it comes to ponds where there are birds and in which people paddle, those are not the ponds that he has dealt with.

Mr. LANSBURY: I never said anything about the birds. It is not the ponds in which the birds paddle that are being dealt with.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I thought the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure on the ponds had a direct connection with the birds that paddled in them. It is a little humorous that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman's activities, either on ponds or parks or the relaying of drains, whenever any particular subject comes up that is not a subject on which he has spent money. I think, if there is any
blame for straying from the immediate subject matter, it lies a little with the right hon. Gentleman, from whom information has been extracted bit by bit through constant references to his advisers in the course of the Debate. I was a little surprised when I heard that the paddle ponds in Regent's Park, on which £6,000 has been spent, were not in order, but the question of the unemployed in Glasgow is in order. The point I want to put is not with regard either to the birds or the trees in the London parks, but with regard to the employment that is actually given there. What is the employment that is given, and to whom and what is it worth? From that point of view I can sympathise with the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie). He has been emphasising that here in London the percentage of unemployment is almost the lowest in the whole country, with the exception of just the area round London and here we have a supplementary Estimate for work done in relief of unemployment in London, and there is a certain amount in the Vote for Holyrood, but, as far as I know, there is none for such other areas as Glasgow, in which the hon. Member is interested.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, if he is here—I saw him here a few minutes ago—what is the labour to which he is giving extra employment in the parks? In my time, the real justification for giving additional labour in the London parks was not the relief of unemployment in London, because we did not feel justified in spending extra national money on relieving unemployment in the place in which unemployment was the least heavy. Therefore, in the days of the last Government when money was spent on the parks, it was not spent principally upon unemployed people in London. Clearly, that seemed inequitable, because had there been money to spend at all, it would have been better to spend it on those places which most needed relief. What was done in those days was to use it for transference purposes. I ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is done in this case We gave employment in the London parks in those past years to transferred men from Wales and from Durham. We took the places where un-
employment was most acute in the depressed mining areas. We realised, in face of opposition from London itself, that every part of the country had to try to help bear the burden which was most heavy in particular places.
Therefore, while no one ever suggested transferring people from Glasgow to London, at the same time there were areas harder hit than Glasgow, areas such as the depressed mining areas, one or two Lancashire areas, but principally Welsh and Durham areas. I would ask the First Commissioner of Works if that is the purpose for which he is giving extra employment in London? If so, that is the justification of it. If it is not so, it is the condemnation of it. It is not fair to spend money in this way, in a time of great financial stress and strain, unless it is directed towards helping people in places where they need it most. Therefore, I want to ask him if this has been the means at the present moment of giving men from Durham or South Wales a chance in the southern districts, even though employment is worse than it was in those days, when London was having almost the boom years of its existence.

Mr. BROOKE: How many men are concerned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: About 160, I should think. There is a year's work for 160.

Mr. LANSBURY: Twenty-six weeks for 560.

Sir A. STEEL-MMTLAND: Let hon. Members realise what that means. When it was a case of bringing people from other areas into an area like London, it was expected that a man might find his feet in about 12 or 13 weeks, and very often less. There was a regular change in order that he might go out and get work elsewhere. We kept a record to see how far they remained in the south or went to their own home again, and once more fell into the morass of unemployment in the original mining districts whence they came. That was the real value originally of unemployment work in the London parks. There was really no question then—and I venture to say there is not now—as to the actual beauty or extra polish in London parks. There was little in it from the point of view of attraction. It
is all very well to have the London parks pleasant and beautiful. At a time like this, when money is scarce, if you spend money in relief of unemployment in order to put more polish on London parks it is difficult to justify unless, by so doing, you manage to switch the benefit on to those places where unemployment is most severe.
I should like to ask the Minister the following questions. I have not the least doubt that he has been in touch with the Ministry of Labour in regard to the employment of men. Can he tell us where the men come from? What is the average amount of time they are given in the parks? What is the value of the work done? I gather from him that he gets, roughly speaking, about 10,000 weeks' work out of £40,000, which is not a very high amount. We should like to hear exactly what it is, and whether the work is really justified in London, a well-off place in comparison with the rest of the country, just when the financial stringency is most acute?

Mr. LANSBURY: The Debate has ranged over various matters more or less relevant. I would like to say with regard to the compliments of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), that, of course, I am very much obliged to him, and I hope I shall live to warrant those compliments. I should also like to say to the Committee, that although my voice is no doubt a nuisance to them, there is no pain to me. It is tired, that is all. I am not suffering any physical pain except the physical disability of knowing that my voice must he a nuisance. To take the remarks of the Noble Lord first, I make no apology to the Committee or to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to my advisers under the Gallery. Anyone can do better except when he is standing here. No Minister would be fool enough to say that he could do without their presence, and that is why there is a lobby for them. It is nothing new for me to have them there any more than it was for the right hon. Gentleman. I am a little tired of hearing rather a cheap sneer because I send for or ask to be given a piece of information which no Minister could pretend to carry about in his head.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There was no cheap sneer intended.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that three times to-might I have been reminded about the people under the Gallery. I take it in quite good humour, and will only say in that respect that I am like the rest of you, no better and no worse.
I am extremely sorry not to be able to agree with the hon. Member or with the Noble Lord about bird sanctuaries. I really have taken a good deal of trouble in this matter, and I am assured by those best able to advise me that the cats do not fare very well, and that the birds have a very good time. I will look into the matter again, though I have not any hope that the people in charge will alter their views. With regard to the prices charged for the paddle boats, it is necessary that we should be accurate about it. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs is not in his place. He said that we charge a penny a minute. We charge 6d. for seven minutes for an electric boat for two children. For the ordinary boats, the charge is 4d. per half-hour for two children. That is very different from 1d. a minute.

Lord BALNIEL: Is 6d. the minimum charge?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, for the seven minutes for the electric boats. The children who want the electric boats can afford to pay that. Our prices compare very favourably even with the County Council prices. That is the test. In regard to pruning trees, does anyone imagine that I would go round ordering this tree or that tree should be pruned? It is all done under very skilled advice. The unemployed men are not employed on that job. The pruning is done by skilled men. We should never dream of putting unskilled men to do it. As to planting, I will discuss the matter with the Department and see if anything can be done. With regard to replanting, I can assure hon. Members that a great deal of thought is given to it, and the best advice is taken. With regard to elms and any tree that is susceptible to smoke, I would say that when we get rid of the smoke nuisance our trees and foliage generally will have a much better chance, but until that time comes we
must take a great deal of care in the choice of trees that can stand up to the atmosphere test to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman's most important question was, Where do the men come from? They come from Durham, Yorkshire, Nottingham and the poorer boroughs of London. The hon. and gallant Member for the Ayr Burghs complained that I brought men from the outside. He thought that I was doing a very bad thing to bring people from outside districts when there were unemployed living around the parks. The answer is, that the work is paid for by the nation and we are obliged to take the men from the areas that are most distressed. I think the right hon. Gentleman would not rule out the very distressed parts of the Metropolis, as well as those outside the Metropolitan area. That reply is an answer to the hon. Member for Springburn. The Botanic Gardens in Glasgow are not under my Department, but the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh are. There is very little work being done there. The main part of the work is in Queen's Park, Linlithgow. We arrange with the Ministry of Labour for the men who are to do the work. I have nothing to do with it except to take the men who are sent by the Ministry of Labour. That is the course which is adopted in London. Any hon. Member who goes round the parks can find out from the men from what parts of England and Wales they come.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the proportion of the men that come from different parts? Anyone going round and asking the men could not ascertain that information.

Mr. LANSBURY: The proportion is about half and half. That proportion, however, will not be the same everywhere. For instance, in Bushey Park the men are from the Metropolis. I have been round on several occasions and the supervisors tell me that the men do their work very well. As experience proves, they improve as they get regular food and regular work. For the first few weeks some of them are not able to do as well as the able-bodied, fit, well-fed man can do, but as the days pass they improve very considerably. Those in
charge of them are quite satisfied that the men do their very best. After the very full and friendly discussion that we have had, I hope the Committee will now allow me to get the Vote.

9.0 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I do not wish to delay the Committee or to go into details of the work done, but I should like to ask a question with regard to the total amount of money which has been spent. In the Vote there is a sum of £42,000. I want to know whether the £42,000 represents what has been spent by the Department, supplemented by grants from other sources, or whether it is the total sum?

Mr. LANSBURY: The total sum this year.

Captain HUDSON: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have been very much interested in the Ministry of Labour for some years past, and I was particularly interested in his remarks about the transferred men. In the time of the last Government he and many other hon. and right hon. Friends of his objected strongly to transfers on the ground that when men were transferred to a district they took work away from men in the district to which they were transferred, and this objection was particularly made in respect of transfers to London. I had a good deal of correspondence on this matter. It would be very interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has found, as the Minister responsible for his own Department, that there is a great deal of difficulty in putting up the transferred men from the districts which are so badly hit. I ask this question because we have had many Debates on this subject, and it would be interesting to know whether the objections which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues raised when the late Government were in office have proved to be as serious as they made out at the time. I have always believed that, although we had serious unemployment in London, it was absolutely necessary to move people from the black areas, where there is no chance of employment. I should like to know what has been the right hon. Gentleman's experience during two years in his Department.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is quite obvious that I am not in a position to-night to discuss with my hon. and gallant Friend what my view may or may not be on the question of transfer, and I do not propose to do so, but I will try to answer his specific question. There is great difficulty with regard to married men, so that we are driven in the end to rest aimost entirely on single men. We have gone into the matter very thoroughly. It is true that we do get overcrowding and sometimes unsatisfactory conditions but, on the whole, I think the men would say that they get fairly decent lodgings, some of them excellent, and some of them make good friendships which will last them for years and probably for life. There is, however, a difficulty in bringing down any number of men into so congested an area as London. The Ministry of Labour and officials of the Office of Works do their best to help by sorting out those who are the right men for the job. There is a difficulty with the single men but there is a greater difficulty still with regard to the married men.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then the system for which we were criticised by hon. Members opposite is working admirably?

Mr. LANSBURY: That is the difficulty of raising a discussion of that kind. I am quite prepared on a suitable occasion to answer the right hon. Member.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has said that some of the men who have been transferred come from Nottingham. I wonder whether he has any record of their previous occupation, because some uncharitable person might suggest that they were formerly engaged in the lace trade and have been deprived of this occupation by the action of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LANSBURY: Most of them are miners.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £60,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment luring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Ex-
penditure in respect of Sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments and Brompton Cemetery.

Mr. LANSBURY: This is another Estimate which makes provision for work for the unemployed in what I am sure will be considered a very useful way. We have saved a small sum of money, £15,000, relatively a small sum compared with the Estimate, but it has reduced the total from £75,000 to £60,000. We undertake this kind of work usually during the winter, and this time we have concentrated on improving the amenities of the ancient buildings and monuments which are entrusted to our care. Everyone who has visited Richborough or any of the old places that come under our jurisdiction—I am not saying this at all in favour of the present Parliamentary head of the Department—will agree that the work of the ancient monuments department, and the Department generally in the care of ancient monuments, is very excellently done, but it does cost money. In asking for this Supplementary Estimate I want hon. Members to keep in mind the beautiful buildings that have been improved and kept in a state of thorough repair.
Let me say one word about one voluntary worker, one man amongst many, who winter after winter gives us his time, his energy, and his knowledge, and also helps us occasionally to get money, and that is Mr. Klein, who is in charge at Richborough Castle. No one who sees that castle to-day will deny that it has been improved and made infinitely more valuable since Mr. Klein started, and I should like to express how much the Department is indebted to him for the work he does so cheerfully and voluntarily each winter. We have had as many as 1,350 people engaged at work throughout Scotland, Wales, and England, and the men who have been employed have been largely from the distressed areas. The one part of the country of which this is not wholly true is the South Coast, and the reason is that there is a considerable number of seasonal workers from Eastbourne around the coast to Margate for whom provision has to be made, and in dealing with Richborough and other castles in these parts it has been found of very great advantage to employ the same kind of men who have got used to the work. We have not in-
terfered with them. I have a long list here of all the various castles and buildings which will be dealt with under this Vote. I will spare the Committee reading it through but I shall be glad to answer any questions in relation to any of them. The whole of this expenditure is on ancient monuments and castles, for the preservation of the amenities of the buildings and the buildings themselves.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sure that the object of the expenditure under this Supplementary Estimate will appeal to every Member of the Committee. If expenditure there must be, then it is some compensation that it should be on such an admirable purpose as this. I assume that the buildings upon which this public expenditure is being undertaken are those which are to be protected permanently for the benefit of the public, and there can be no question of the expenditure being ultimately allowed. At the same time I do not think that the admirable object in view should divert the criticism which ought to be made on this, as well as upon the Estimate which preceded it. The Committee will observe that this is the second Estimate presented of what I should call a casual and unrelated object of expenditure on unemployment relief, and the criticism which should be made is that it is not satisfactory that schemes of expenditure for the sake of unemployment relief should be produced as an afterthought and unrelated to each other. Let me put it in the form of a question, and ask the Minister to tell us what is the real governing consideration in this expenditure; is it the needs and objects upon which the money is spent or is it the needs of unemployment?
Let me ask this question in regard to this Estimate: Is this expenditure of £60,000 the actual net amount required by the object and, in particular, is it part of some unforeseen programme for the maintenance and upkeep of these buildings? Or is that not so? Is it merely that the Minister in his ingenuity has been thinking of something plausible to do with the money, and is the expenditure really dictated by the fact that he has thought that £60,000 might be spent in relief of unemployment? What has led to the amount being £60,000 and not some other sum? One wants to find
out what is the scheme of the Government in these proposals. Surely it is very obvious that with our finances in their present condition we must get the best value we can out of every pound of public money spent for the benefit of unemployment. Surely it is also obvious that we cannot hope to get the best value out of the money we are spending on unemployment unless we undertake that the whole of the expenditure is expenditure under a single co-ordinated scheme.
What co-ordination is there in these forms of expenditure? Can the Minister say that they have been considered in relation to each other by any unified coordinating body? Systems of relief expenditure by local authorities are most carefully considered by various committees which consider the expenditure from every conceivable aspect. What has been done in the case of this additional expenditure to make sure that it has some relation to a common scheme? The same consideration which was so forcibly urged by my right hon. Friend in relation to the last Supplementary Estimate, applies to this, that you have here expenditure which, owing to the nature of the case, is attached to certain districts, and that those districts may not be the districts where you most need to have relief of unemployment. I feel that in connection with this Estimate we should have a reassurance on these heads.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I think I can answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman without much trouble by saying that a good part of this money has probably been spent already.

Mr. CULVERWELL: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this money has already been spent?

Mr. JONES: I suggest that a great deal of it has been expended. I rose, however, to congratulate the First Commissioner of Works on the correctitude of this Estimate in comparison with other Votes which we have discussed. He asks for the whole sum. That is the correct procedure. I must thank him for this Estimate in its correct form, and I would express the hope that in all his future Estimates he will follow this correct practice.

Major DAVIES: It is peculiarly fortunate that we have two Front Benches
that can give answers to out questions. I would like to draw attention to one curious thing about this Estimate. It is exactly the round figure of £60,000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir H. Young) had rightly diagnosed the situation—I do not criticise it adversely under these condiions—that the Office of Works was asked to see what it could do with regard to the provision of additional employment, and it was suggested that £60,000 worth might be done by the Office of Walks in connection with historic buildings and ancient monuments. The object is very desirable but the method is open to question. In the expenditure there seems to have been a primary object and a secondary object. The primary object was to provide a certain amount of work for the unemployed, and the secondary object was to use the money in a direction which no one criticises. I would like to add my rimed of praise to the Department for the work that has been done up and down the country on these ancient buildings and monuments. In the last year or two I have been able to compare the conditions to-day with those that I knew some 20 years ago, and the metamorphosis is most remarkable. Scientific and historical skill, wisely applied, is going to give to posterity a source not only of scientific interest but of enormous pleasure.
Here there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had in the forefront of his mind the provision of useful work for the unemployed. But if there is any work in which thoroughly skilled and experienced labour is necessary, it is this work, which is as important as the work of preserving great cathedrals, such as Lincoln and St. Paul's. Therefore there is a very limited area in which the right hon. Gentleman is justified in applying that labour which we class as unemployed. In his anxiety to justify the expenditure of this peculiarly round sum of £60,000 the right hon. Gentleman may have rather pushed forward the employment feature and allowed those for whom he is responsible to lose sight of what has hitherto been kept in the forefront, and that is applying the best brains and the most skilled labour to achievement of the object in view. I hope that the
right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on that particular point.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The right hon. Gentleman deserves a medal for the way in which he has dealt with this Debate, and he owes a vote of thanks to the right hon. Member for deputising for him. If I may, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman for him. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) said he was wise in this, as compared with previous Estimates, because, although there was a deduction for services not to be carried out, he had not shown it in his Supplementary Estimate, but took the full sum of £75,000. He commended him for that, but the right hon. Gentleman is a little misguided after all. This is a new sub-head and a new service.

Mr. LEIF JONES: No; this sub-head EE is a continuation Of sub-head E. In the main Estimates there is provided £62,000 for "maintenance and repair of ancient monuments." Now there is a Vote for the same subject with two EE's this time.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The right hon. Gentleman has failed me. I certainly thought he would give a better reply on behalf of his leader than that, because I do not know how E can be the same as EE. It may be in Cornwall, but not in this part of the country. If he looks at the Supplementary Estimate, he will see that it refers to "Original Estimate, £…" That is to say, this is a new service. According to the Ruling given earlier from the Chair this evening, we could have opened out a much larger discussion and treated it as a new sub-head of the original Estimate. We could have raised the whole question of using unemployment relief funds for ancient monuments. It raises the question as to what is an ancient monument in the meaning of a Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Member for Camborne is very loquacious, but I do not know if he can explain what his leader has in view when he takes money for relief works in connection with ancient monuments. An hon. Member alluded just now to Lincoln Cathedral. Is the repair work which is now being carried on these and in other public buildings included in this?

Mr. LANSBURY: No.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is not. As a matter of fact, as far as Lincoln is concerned, we have been relieved of our troubles there by the Harkness Trust last week. Otherwise, I would have appealed to him to assist them. He only mentioned Richborough, and we have heard of a gentleman who devoted a great deal of service towards helping to keep it tidy. One place I have in mind is St. Albans. I remember seeing a great many illustrations about what was being clone at St. Albans. Is that included?

Mr. LANSBURY: No.

Captain CROOKSHANK: We may eventually find out exactly what is an ancient monument. The right hon. Gentleman should give us some more examples besides Richborough. These ancient monuments are to be improved and kept in repair according to him. He talks about improving an ancient monument, but, after all, an ancient monument is not a think to be improved like a small boy by being sent to school. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by improving an ancient monument? There has been a great deal said about the restoration work up and down the country in the sham Gothic era and in the glorious time of the Prince Consort. That would not to-day be considered an improvement. What is the standard of improvement? Is it laid down by the architects of the Department, by the First Commissioner's professional advisers, or has he consulted the Royal Commission, which has had a great deal to do with ancient monuments, or the Fine Arts Commission? Or perhaps he sees that there are a great many unemployed in some parts of the country and says, "There are some funny looking mines in some fields there, let us dig them up." Is that the standard by which he picks out these monuments, or does he take some place like Fountains Abbey or some other ancient abbey and, realising that there is repair work to be done, set about it scientifically? [Interruption.] The hon. Members round me are being frivolous. Will he clear up this point? He said that 1,350 men are employed on this work for £75,000. Not long ago I heard it said by him that it cost £1,000,000 to employ 4,000 men. There is a great discrepancy in these figures. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman might not have said that, but
that is what Ministers have said on the Front Bench. The Treasury Bench should all tell the same story. The right hon. Gentleman agree with that, and I expect his deputy in front of me agrees.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The figure is 4,000 men per year.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is exactly what I am complaining about. We simply do not know, and we have not been told. Will the right hon. Gentleman then answer these points? I What is his standard of improvement and of keeping in repair? What is his standard of an ancient monument, and what is his standard of the amount of employment any given man is going to get out of this work?

Mr. DIXEY: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, who is in a very unfortunate position. I should like your guidance as to whether you hold that this is an entirely new Vote or whether it is a supplementary Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give a ruling upon a point of Order. This Estimate is certainly a new Estimate for a specific purpose, but it continues an old service. It is rather too late in the day now to inquire what ancient monuments are.

Mr. DIXEY: It is an extraordinary situation; when an estimate is presented for a given sum, to find the right hon. Gentleman announcing to us that this sum of money has already been largely spent. I hope he will let us know whether we are simply wasting our time on this matter. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to appreciate that this is the taxpayers' money. It is up to them to try to assist us in getting a proper statement of all the financial expenditure in which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are lavishly indulging at this critical time in the country's history. Surely the right hon. Gentleman who, with his great gifts and his services to his party, occupies a position of confidence in the Government, is aware of the very pertinent observations which have been made-by his right hon. colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of expenditure. Yet we are debating here an, item of £75,000 to be spent on something which the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand.
We have only had one weak reference to one particular object of this expenditure. Several questions have been asked by hon. Members to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply in detail giving us some idea as to the general standard of upkeep in connection with these monuments. As far as we have been able to learn up to the present, this money is being expended, not to maintain any proper standard in regard to these monuments, but simply to provide jobs of some sort for people who are out of work. I object to hon. Members being asked to vote upon an Estimate of this kind when we know that it is not really necessary and is a mere sop to the workers because the Government have no proper programme to deal with unemployment. We know that the party of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne has an extensive and progressive policy to deal with unemployment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: They may have, but it does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. DIXEY: I was carried away by my enthusiasm and I quite agree that there is au element of doubt as to the practicability of the programme of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. But I suggest to the Minister that it is not enough to come here with an Estimate of this kind and to assume that because we know that there are people out of work, his Department can undertake expenditure without giving any proper explanation. I know that an arrangement has been arrived at regarding these discussions, but, before we sanction this expenditure, I would like to insist upon a proper and detailed explanation.

Mr. BRACKEN: I join with the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) in pressing upon the First Commissioner of Works the necessity for giving to the Committee some details of this enormous expenditure. So far we have only had the one reference to Richborough. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to The quite frank about this matter because £60,000 is a lot of money to spend on ancient monuments—probably much more than the ancient monuments cost to build. It is embarrassing to know to whom to address inquiries upon this subject—
whether to the First Commissioner of Works or to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne should presume to answer for the Ministry. One can only come to the conclusion that he is an ancient monument himself. [Interruption.] I quite agree that if all monuments were as useful as the right hon. Gentleman we should consider it worth while to maintain them, but £60,000 is, as I say, a great deal of money to spend on an object like this, especially without any proper explanation.
The First Commissioner of Works has been making perfervid appeals for homes for the people in Bow and Bromley, and I cannot understand why he should now be so much concerned about ancient castles, whose artistic value is unknown and about which no one ever heard until now. I certainly cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have approved an item of expenditure such as this. It is really disgraceful that we should be asked at this time to spend £60,000 on an unknown object. Through a process of severe cross-examination, we have learned that the object is not the upkeep of cathedrals. What is it? Perhaps it is on Roman walls. We know the right hon. Gentleman's passion for Roman walls. We know that he travelled at the expense of the Office of Works all over the North of England searching for those interesting curios. But to come here at a time when the finances of the State are in such dreadful peril, and to ask us to find this sum of money for the upkeep of monuments, is disgraceful.
It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), who has done more than anyone else in this country for the protection of local amenities, should show some hard-heartedness towards this proposal. But while all these questions are being raised, the Minister sits there mute, inglorious—and hungry—while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne attempts to explain this expenditure. I cannot understand the devotion shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne in connection with this matter, unless it be due to the fact that these ancient castles are surrounded by moats and that the moats are full of
water. But this is a serious matter, and I beg of the First Commissioner to give us a list of the works involved in this Estimate, to touch upon each of the monuments concerned, and to give us the exact sum which it is proposed to expend on each one. If the right hon. Gentleman is fatigued by the evening of obstruction which he has spent in resisting our natural inquiries into these subjects, perhaps he will ask the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) to provide an answer in order that we may proceed through these Estimates with greater swiftness. We only want a detailed list of the sums to be spent upon each of these, no doubt, worthy objects, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to waste no further time in giving us such a reply. No doubt he will be able to do so from the material provided by his very diligent perambulating Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has been so active during the evening.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I wish to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, on a point of Order. On a previous Vote you ruled that where an entirely new subject was raised, the discussion might take a more general form than otherwise. I wish to know if in this case discussion would be permitted on the question of the desirability of grants of this kind for the general purposes of unemployment relief.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already given a definite Ruling on that point. I pointed out that this is not strictly speaking a new Estimate. It is an Estimate for a new purpose, namely, the employment of unemployed people. But the general service to which it relates is covered by the original Estimate. It would be quite proper to ask whether it is advisable or not to employ unemployed men on this particular work.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Dunnico, for your Ruling. It appeared at first sight to be an entirely new Estimate which would justify a much wider range of discussion. I wish to reinforce the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) in the interests of economy. It is true that the sum of £60,000 is a mere bagatelle compared with the millions which we are voting in
other respects daily, but the Minister himself has laid stress on the importance of saving even such a sum as £50,000. I feel certain that to-day he is in no extravagant mood and that he has probably had a consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the previous week.
It is surprising to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed him to spend this money, because, much as we all value the preservation of these castles and ancient monuments, there comes a time when the country, which is in such financial straits, would wish that at any rate for a year or two these ancient monuments should chance their luck and wait till we can afford to repair them and keep them in order, £60,000 can ill be afforded in these days; it represents the interest on about £1,500,000. In view of the appeals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to all of us to economise, it is a great surprise that we should be voting £60,000 for matters which can under certain circumstances wait. If we are right in spending this money, I think we shall be asked why we are spending £60,000 on tumbledown castles when we might be spending it on tumble-down cottages.
It is all very well to spend this money to provide room for ancient ghosts, but it would be better to provide new houses for living folk, and perhaps the Minister will explain how it is that when we are in such financial straits he can still afford £60,000, when even half that money would be very useful to any of our constituencies to improve our housing. The Attorney-General appears to be amused. I happen to know Preston, and, if he is happy about the housing conditions in Preston, he is very easily pleased. If some of this money could be spent in Preston instead of at Richborough, it would be of very great advantage to his constituency, and I hope that he may have some influence with the First Commissioner and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and divert a part of this sum.

Lord BALNIEL: I do not feel any particular hostility to this Estimate, though I think it is an unfortunate moment at which to produce it. What proportion of this sum of £60,000 is to be spent on Brompton Cemetery, and does Brompton Cemetery properly come under the description of a historic build-
ing or an ancient monument? The right hon. Gentleman said the whole of this sum was to be spent on ancient buildings and public monuments, in spite of the fact that the first sentence in the Estimate says, "Public Buildings…including Historic Buildings." We have not been told whether the £60,000 is for pure relief work, whether the work would be done supposing there was no unemployment. Under Item "EE," unemployment relief works are described, and lower down on the Paper we see "Details of the above," and the details of the above are described as follows:
Provision for works for the purpose of relieving unemployment.
In fact, that is precisely the same meaning in longer language. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying he has a long list of castles. He must tell us, at any rate, the names of a few of them. It is no use, by a process of negative criticism, my hon. and gallant Friend giving a certain number of cathedrals which he could remember and discovering that not one of them is included. That is not good enough. We must have a few concrete, definite statements as to what the right hon. Gentleman is doing with this money. Is he, for instance, doing anything for the castle at Berkhamstead?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes.

Lord BALNIEL: Then I am afraid I must criticise the work that is being done there. I passed it recently in the train, and I looked with horror at the work which was being done compared with the position as I knew it some years ago. I believe the work is most extravagant and unnecessary, and that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated the trees round that castle is deplorable. He has cut down any number of very beautiful trees; he has levelled the ground in a way which I believe would incur the condemnation of all archaeologists; he has ruthlessly destroyed all vegetation round the castle. He has destroyed the whole thing, both from the archaeological point of view and from the point of view of the person who merely looks for something picturesque. Not only so, but he has filled in a moat round the castle, and a more complete and futile waste of time and money could
scarcely be imagined. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is really satisfied with the work that is being done under this Vote, and whether he thinks those to whom he is giving work, very properly, are doing the work well. I want to know how many men have been employed altogether—it is no use being told how many were employed in a certain time—and what proportion of this £60,000 has been spent in wages.
Perhaps, when criticising that particular piece of work, which, as I say, I have seen from the track only, it seems fair to say that on the whole I agree that the work of the right hon. Gentleman's Department with regard to ancient monuments could not well be improved. The right hon. Gentleman has filled many roles in the past few months. We have seen pictures of him swinging in a swing and rowing in a boat, which was far too small for him. We have seen the various phases of the right hon. Gentleman's development, bat I think this Estimate shows one of the most curious phases of all. We remember the revolutionary, the iconoclast, of former days, but now, under this Supplementary Estimate, the right hon. Gentleman is spending his time and the money of the public in propping up relics of feudalism and in breuilding medieval castles. By such means the ancient traditions of the old world redress the balance of the new. By such means is Socialism in our time being made possible. If it were in order, one might invoke the shades of Lenin to try and find out what he now thinks of the decadence and fall from the path of virtue of his one-time disciple and ardent admirer. While we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his change of heart, probably his one-time master is turning in his grave.

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope that the mausoleum where Lenin lies is all right. With regard to the last part of the Noble Lord's speech, I happened to be one of the small group of people who, with the aid of William Morris, who was as good a Socialist as ever lived, prevailed on the people of this country 45 years ago to prevent the destruction of a beautiful set of ancient buildings in the Mile End Road—the Trinity Almshouses, and also to preserve Bow Church in the middle of the road. My interest
in ancient monuments and the preservation of historic buildings is no new-born enthusiasm. I have always had it. It happens that in Russia one thing strikes everybody who goes there. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) visited Russia, and wrote a story of his visit and of the picture galleries and the ancient monuments—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is rather departing from the discussion.

Mr. LANSBURY: I withdraw, but I am a little susceptible to the criticism that I am taking up a new point of view about these things.

Lord BALNIEL: My criticism was not meant to be taken too seriously.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: All the criticism about the way the work has been done must, I think, be humorous. Hon. Members cannot mean what they say, because the work is carried through not by the transient person who happens to be First Commissioner, but by the permanent Chief Inspector of the Ancient Monuments Department. Mr. C. R. Peers is the authority on these questions in this country, and no step is taken without his advice and approval. I was asked whether the object of spending this money is to give work to the unemployed, or to preserve ancient monuments. The expenditure has both objects in view. The work is necessary, and we have taken advantage of there being so many unemployed to get the work done. The bulk of the work is unskilled work, and, when I speak of restoring, preserving or improving, I mean the removal of vast quantities of rubbish from works that it will reveal buildings as they were originally. The number of schemes is 77. I want to express my appreciation of the fact that it is realised that we have really presented one Estimate in the proper way, and I bow my acknowledgements to everybody.

Mr. REMER: Is the statement of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) correct, that this money has been spent?

Mr. LANSBURY: This Supplementary Estimate deals with public expenditure
in the same manner as other Supplementary Estimates which come before the Committee at this time of the year. The bulk of the money has been already spent.

Lord BALNIEL: How many men have been employed?

Mr. LANSBURY: 1,300.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £49,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that the Government are anxious to get the Third Reading of another Bill after these Estimates have been taken. I notice that there is still one more Vote after this. This Vote includes the Washington Embassy, in which many of my hon. Friends are interested. I suggest that we should reserve our rights to have a fairly full discussion on the Report stage, and to curtail the discussion on the present occasion.

Mr. LANSBURY: I see no one in authority about business here, but so far as I am able to give a pledge I will do so, and do my best to implement it. I should have thought that the other Vote, which relates to Works and Buildings in Ireland, would not have aroused any controversy.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Let us be quite clear about this. We are willing to fall in with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman and to help him, but it is to be perfectly well understood that on this Estimate, dealing with public buildings overseas, we reserve our rights to have a completely full discussion on the Report stage.

Mr. LANSBURY: A reasonable discussion. I take it the hon. Member does not mean that it is to go all night. I for one would be very much obliged if the Committee would agree to give me the last Vote, which deals with expenditure in Northern Ireland.

WORKS AND BUILDINGS IN IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Public Works and Buildings in Ireland.

Mr. LANSBURY: In this case, also, a reduction was made on the original Estimate, but the work has progressed so much quicker than we have expected that the sum deducted needed to be spent. The extra sum spent amounted to £10,000, but a portion of that expenditure has been saved, because we have recovered £2,000 in respect of agency services for the Government of Northern Ireland, rents, old materials, etc., and we get credit for £3,000 in respect of additional repayments in respect of services carried out under Section 34 (i) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What is the reference to the additional repayments by the Government of Northern Ireland?

Mr. LANSBURY: Provision was made in the Estimates for a recovery of £23,955 from the Government of Northern Ireland, based upon an expenditure of £75,000. Owing to the necessity of increasing the Estimate to £85,000, that is, restoring the £10,000, the amount to be recovered will be increased by £3,000. That means that instead of recovering £23,855 we shall recover £26,855, and that is taken into account to reduce the sum of £10,000.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I do not want to put any more strain on the right hon. Gentleman's voice, but there are one or two points on which I should like some information. What are the works to which reference is made in this Estimate? There is nothing to indicate what they are. After all, we in this Parliament are the dominant partner, and we ought to know something of what is done. Does the right hon. Gentleman get any information from Northern Ireland as to what is happening Does he exercise any control over this expenditure, or is he so completely satisfied with the manner in which the Northern Ireland Government carry out their duties—and I should not blame him for
that—that he demands no further information?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that I did not mention earlier that the works are the new Supreme Court and public offices, which this Department is building for the Northern Ireland Government.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Lawson.]

Major ELLIOT: Are we to have no statement from the Government before the Bill is given a Third Reading?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): It is very often the case, if it is not the rule, that Bills pass Third Reading without any discussion at all. We had a long explanation of the Money Resolution in Committee, and we had a Debate, I think, on the Report stage, and then we had a Debate on the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill itself. The position, as the House well knows, is this: that the Bill raises the borrowing powers of the Unemployment Fund from £70,000,000 to £90,000,000, and that if it be not passed there will not be the money to pay unemployment benefit up to the end of the summer. In its second Clause the Bill extends the period during which men can remain on transition benefit; if that Clause is not passed their rights would begin to be exhausted by the end of April. I do not think it is necessary further to explain the provisions of the Bill, but if any hon. Member has any questions to ask I will, with the permission of the House to speak again, do my best to answer him.

Major ELLIOT: It will be in the minds of hon. Members that the position is that if this Bill were here and now to be rejected a serious situation would arise. That is the fault of those who insisted that nothing short of the full period for which they asked and which was laid
down in the Bill would be accepted. I would like to point out once more that, if the Amendment which we moved had been accepted, it would have enabled the House to review the position at a future date. In my opinion, this Bill will inflict a great hardship on many people, and the House cannot possibly contemplate the administrative confusion which will arise. This Bill casts a burden upon the public purse at a most inappropriate time, and it makes very little attempt to deal with the problems which have arisen. It ignores altogether the explicit assurances of reconstruction which the Minister has given more than once to obtain these vast sums at an earlier stage. A Bill like this cannot be permitted to pass in a merely formal way after a protest has been made on a previous occasion.
I do not propose to go over the arguments which have been advanced before as to why the Government are not justified in asking the House to adopt the long period with regard to unemployment insurance which is contained in the proposal now made. Those of us who have had the problem under review must greatly regret that no Minister with any authority is present this evening to defend the Third Reading of this Measure. I do not claim to be anything more than a humble Member of the House of Commons.

Mr. TILLETT: Poor "Dear Brutus."

Major ELLIOT: No man has spoken more eloquently of the necessity of keeping the period under review than the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) when he was in Opposition, and now when the Labour Government is in office no Member is more anxious to burke the problem. It is exactly that type of half-hearted condemnation that we wish to expose. It is the attitude of the hon. Member opposite that we resent more than the attitude of almost any other Member in the House. The Minister is anxious to stop Debate—Ministers are always anxious to stop Debate. The Minister is anxious to get this Bill—Ministers are always anxious to get their Bills. Hon. Members of the Labour party rent the welkin with denunciation of us when we were on that side of the House, and explained what they would do if they were there. Now they sit mum, and anxious only that
nothing more should be done—[Interruption]. These are the people whose hypocrisy we cannot forgive—[Interruption]—and whose hypocrisy the country does not find it possible to forgive either.
The difficulty before the House will not be got rid of by merely passing this Bill. The difficulty which the Minister has Lurked for the time being remains. The Royal Commission, which is sitting and issuing these inconvenient questionnaires, will make its report, we are told, in time for new legislation to be brought forward, and then the Minister will regret that she has not given the House any indication of her attitude towards these problems which she proposes to bring up at an early date. The House is asked to pass this Bill to-night without any indication from the Minister as to what attitude the Government desires to take up on these important questions, without any indication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what attitude he desires to take up on these important questions, and without any indication from the Prime Minister—but that goes without, saying. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken bold words, and has run away from them. We shall see later on what the Royal Commission reports, and whether the Government Bench is going to follow his example or not. This Bill is, as I have said, a Bill of postponement, of shuffling, of shirking the issue, and for this Government, of all Governments in the world, to take up that attitude, is betraying the whole campaign upon which it obtained power, and on account of which it occupies those benches to-night.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I hope that the House will divide against the Third Reading of this Bill. The Government really have no excuse for asking the House of Commons to pass the Bill at the present stage. The situation is nothing new; it has been developing for the past 18 months, and the Government might well have foreseen what was bound to happen. They have not lacked advice from either side of the House. Hon. Members behind them have constantly warned them of what was going to happen, and hon. Members below the Gangway, at any rate, have been just as emphatic as we on this side of the House in the questions they have been putting to the Government for
the last two years, asking how they proposed to deal with the problem of the unemployed, as apart from the problem of unemployment. For 18 months the Government took no action of any sort or kind; they did nothing to grapple with this problem; and, if there was any subject upon which a Labour administration might have been expected to hold some views, it surely should have been the question of how to treat and how to handle the unemployed themselves, quite apart from the intrinsic problem of unemployment.
At long last the Government set up a three-party committee to investigate the question under conditions of secrecy, which were grossly violated the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was the result of that committee? As soon as it began to get down to the facts, as soon as it came within sight of presenting to the Government a report on the facts, the Government ran away in an absolute panic and dissolved the committee altogether; and, in order to set up a further weapon of delay, they instituted a Royal Commission, which is still sitting, and the report of which they are anxious to avoid for as long as possible. In the meanwhile, after having hurked all executive action, after having hurked the whole function of Government, after having turned this vitally urgent problem over, first to one committee and then to another, and finally to a Royal Commission, the Government' come down and invite the House to vote £20,000,000 and they do not tell us what they propose to do, or how they propose to handle this question in the long run. They give us no indication as to what their views are about this question of how to handle the unemployed, and on the Third Reading they send down no responsible Minister to give us any further statement than we have been vouchsafed.
The present situation is really a disgrace, and hon. Members opposite know that it is a disgrace. whether you look at it from the point of view of a Socialist or a Conservative or a Liberal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or an Englishman!"] The English are past praying for. From whatever point of view you look at it, there is one thing about which
we can all agree, except the occupants of the Treasury Bench, and that is that it is a good thing to have in any country a Government that is prepared to govern, against one which is not prepared to put forward any constructive suggestions of any kind on any question. At least the Government might have made up their minds about this two years ago and decided what action they were going to take and informed the House of Commons. In the meantime we are slopping out £100,000,000 a year. [HON. MEMBERS "Not true!"] That is the figure that was given on Saturday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope we shall divide against the Third Reading if only to show the country that we, at any rate, believe that the Bill is only brought before the House because the Government have failed hopelessly either to deal with the fundamental problem of unemployment or with the practical and urgent physical problem of how to handle the unemployed.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I hope, also, that this party will register its feeling about the Bill by dividing against the Third Reading. There is one small reason why I should like hon. Members opposite to consider whether they ought to allow this system of dribbling out public money to maintain the unemployed to go on. It is a point of view which has not been sufficiently noticed, but they are maintaining one of the worst vices of the capitalist system by this drenching out of the dole. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is a dole?"] It is a dole. A year or so ago, when you had standard benefit, towards which people contributed, you could speak about it as insurance, but now that you have this transitional benefit, which is not contributed to at all, but which is handed out to all and sundry, it is a dole. They are maintaining an over-supplied labour market. Instead of causing industry to pare its requirements of labour down to an economic limit, they are keeping a floating pool of labour going. [Interruption.] That is exactly what ought to be done if industry is to be run efficiently and economically. We all desire to see a reserve of work and not a reserve of personnel. We desire to see a reserve of work to be drawn upon in bad times and not a pool of stagnant personnel among whom the employers
can pick and choose when bad times come. I remember that the right hon. Lady is directly encouraging those employers who would like to see a very much larger number of labour personnel waiting for work than the economic condition of the country justifies.
Take, for instance, some of the new industries which have established themselves in the South of England. I know of one not 70 miles from London. They engage vastly more people than they can possibly employ. They turn them off work and engage a new set of people, and the result is that you have something like two or three times the quantity of labouring people trained and ready than the industry can, according to reasonable anticipation, ever require. The remainder are thrown upon unemployment insurance relief. That position is reproducing itself all over the country. You are getting the employers and the workpeople co-operating to keep a mutt: larger pool of labour than is necessary to keep them available in the areas for capital to dip into just as it likes. That position is being maintained simply because we are prepared to come to the House of Commons time after time and repeat this borrowing process.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If they were not taken into this fund, what would happen to them?

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman puts a perfectly justifiable point. We have to face the increased fluidity of labour in this country. The chairman of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations issued a very important report a little while ago pointing out that one of the greatest economic difficulties which this country had at the present time was the lack of any fluidity of labour. You stagnate labour and keep it concentrated in those districts, and upon a job in which it cannot maintain employment by the method adopted of doling out these large sums of money.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me of any place to which labour can float at the moment?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I can tell you places from where it cannot float. It cannot float from places where there is twice as much labour as the local industry can employ. As long as you play into the hands of the local industries by doling
out money, you are sustaining a wholly improper and uneconomic structure in your economic organisation.

Mr. TILLETT: May I ask the hon. and learned Member whether or not concentrated capitalism has had more to do with our position to-day than in any other country?

Mr. O'CONNOR: It is quite possible, but the policy of the Government seems to be to subsidise, as I am pointing out, some of the very worst features of capitalism in this country. It is true that in this Bill the Government are simply doing what other Governments have done before. Ever since 1920, Governments have asked for further borrowing powers for the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but that is no excuse in the mouth of this Government, because they came here to alter all these things. They came here saying that these things were not to be permitted any longer. The right hon. Lady made a very bold show when she first came down to borrow money, and said that it was a dishonest course, and that she had no intention of doing it again. It was really for that very reason that transitional benefit was placed wholly upon the Exchequer, so that this intolerable drain should not be put upon the fund itself any more.
Notwithstanding those boasts, those promises, and the altered procedure, whereby the whole cost of transitional benefit was passed on to the Exchequer, we find that they are coming down now to borrow, not only what is now a sort of precedent sum, because £10,000,000 can be accepted as the amount which the taxpayer will pass without murmuring, but twice the amount. It is not fair, as has been pointed out on previous occasions, to the insured contributors in steady work, to allow them to go on paying into a fund which is insolvent, and getting more insolvent every day. Nobody would permit that in any ordinary insurance system. It is because we feel that it is neither one thing nor the other, neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring, neither insurance nor public assistance, that I, for one, hope we shall divide the House against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I am very interested to hear that the young Tories are in action on the question of Unemployment
Insurance, and I hope that they will carry out what they have indicated, their intention of voting against the Third Reading of this Bill. It will show us that the young Tories, as distinct from the older Tories, are anxious that labour should be made to move more freely around the country, driven by the goad of starvation. That seems to be the moral to be drawn from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Luton. [HON. MEMBERS: "Central Nottingham."] It was for holding views of that sort that he ceased to be the Member for Luton. We are discussing the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which does not entitle me to review the whole problem of unemployment in this country. The necessity for the Government coming forward and asking for the additional money at this time arises quite definitely out of the Unemployment Insurance Act which was passed by the hon. and learned Member's own Government in 1927. Do not let us leave that fact out of mind. Hon. Members talk about the Bill being actuarially unsound. The actuarial basis of the Act under which Unemployment Insurance is operating to-day was laid down by the Government of the hon. and learned Member opposite in 1927. At that time, as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) said, the back benchers fought strongly on the Unemployment Insurance Bill on the assumption that we were to have 600,000 or 700,000 unemployed workers in the course of a month or so. That was described as a fantastic fallacy. The right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Labour at that time knew better. He had the best possible advice at the Ministry of Labour, and he said that there was a silver lining to the cloud.

Sir BASIL PETO: Because we had a Conservative Government in office.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, and the Conservative Government in office saw, as the Coalition Government before it saw, and as the present Labour Government sees, the sun rising behind the heavens. I am not blaming any of the previous Governments for devining that optimistic view, because whatever Government was in power the same power was operating behind it at the Treasury and at the
Ministry of Labour. We were told then, as we are told to-day, that we must economise. We must make the workers a little bit poorer, and then trade would come right. It is going steadily worse. The position that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to face is very grave, it is the result of 12 years persistent following of the Treasury policy of economising and cutting down the standard of life of the working classes. When the Bill was going through the House in 1927 the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) moved an Amendment urging that the actuarial basis of the Bill should be reviewed not at the end of five years, as was suggested by the Government of that day, but at the end of one year. There was the most preposterous piece of gagging that I have ever seen. When ray hon. Friend was moving that Amendment complaining that the actuarial basis of the Bill was wrong and that we should have to come month after month for fresh grants the Minister of Labour got up and moved the Closure, and when I protested to the Chairman of Committees in somewhat stronger terms than is allowed by the Rules of the House I was heaved out into Palace Yard by the votes of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, the hon. Member for Aberdeen; and if the hon. Member who once sat for Luton had been present I have no doubt that he would have cast his vote in the same way.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member will not forget that we had had 16 days of Parliamentary discussion on that Bill, and that he would never have allowed the Third Reading Of that Bill between the hours of 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock at night.

Mr. MAXTON: No, because that Bill was actuarially unsound. Notice the difference between that Bill and the present Measure. This Bill is merely to make good the bad finance of that Measure, an entirely different thing. My vote against the Third Reading of that Bill would have been a vote to put it on a sound actuarial footing and in conformity with the probable economic happenings in this country. What hon. Members opposite are doing to-night is to refuse supplies to unemployed fellow citizens. That can be the only possible
meaning, and I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove will go to his constituents and tell them this.

Major ELLIOT: I said during my speech, and I say again, that our Amendment was for the specific purpose of having this matter reviewed by the House of Commons at an earlier date. I do not intend to vote against the Third Reading—

Mr. TILLETT: You want to starve them.

Major ELLIOT: Nobody would argue with the hon. Member for Salford North (Mr. Tillett) at the moment. I am discussing the matter with an hon. Member who really does think about it and who takes it seriously to heart.

Mr. TILLETT: I have given 50 years of my life to my people, and I have no emnity against your class. I have fought for my own people, and it is hon. Members like you who are anxious to starve my class.

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. TILLETT: I am sorry.

Major ELLIOT: If I have been led into an interjection which I should not have made I apologise to the hon. Member and to the House.
Our Amendment was intended to reveal the position as it will be in a few months' time, and to accuse me of wanting to starve the unemployed in such circumstances is a suggestion which is totally alien to the whole of my speech and to the whole tenor of our discussion. I will say no more on that subject. The hon. Member for Bridgeton should know that our Amendment was designed to review the matter at a three months' interval instead of six months, and it is a travesty of language to say that it was an attempt to starve the unemployed. I said that I did not desire to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill because it might have the effect of causing hardship and injustice to the unemployed, and for that reason I was counselling my hon. Friends not to divide. In such circumstances I hope the hon. Member for Bridgeton will reflect whether he has not, in his turn, spoken harshly of me and that the suggestion that I desired to bring hardship to the unemployed was not in my mind.

Mr. MAXTON: Of course I accept the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I did not hear the whole of his speech. I made my way to the House as soon as I knew that Unemployment Insurance was the topic for discussion, and I arrived only in time to hear the conclusion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks, and I was misled into believing that the Young Conservative Party was united.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Is your party united?

Mr. MAXTON: I am very glad to say that the group to which I belong has a higher percentage of unity at the moment than any other group that I see in the House. But I advise anyone who is a political leader in these days, however small his band may be, not to boast himself too much; you never know how long the position will be maintained. But I make this point in reply to the hon. and gallant Member, that while it may be true that what he has urged here is a review of the situation in three months, I have listened, at all stages of this Bill, carefully and in silence, to hear what speakers opposite have said, and they all have laid emphasis on the necessity for economy in this matter of Unemployment Insurance. Although challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on two occasions, never one would say specifically what he proposed to do in the way of putting the fund on a sound basis. They talk about removing anomalies, about not pouring out this large sum of Treasury money, but they never come down to specific proposals, because they can think of no specific proposal that is going to economise on the fund, unless it means taking money out of the pockets of people who are very poor at the present time. And they dare not say it. I suggest to them that if they were in office to-day they dare not do it.
I say to them, "Do you want to duplicate in this country the position in the United States?" The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) suggested that it was necessary to reduce the stagnant pool of labour. Is he suggesting that it should be done by the revolver and the river—the United States method? What other proposal has he? Is it to be done by the meaner weapon of starvation? How
are hon. Members opposite going to reduce the stagnant pool of unemployed people? [HON. MEMBERS: "By Protection!"] We have been trying in this House genuinely for 10 or 12 years to find work, and every Government in succession has failed to find work. The very small group with which I have been associated has come forward again and again, and has said, "You are starting at the wrong end in looking for work. You have looked for work and found unemploymen." We say, "Start looking for an income for the people, and make that a means towards the end. When the income is going into the homes and is being expended in the shops, then the work comes along." Hon. Members start at the wrong end. They start looking for work, and every year that goes by they find it more difficult to find schemes of work for the people.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is being carried away. He must confine himself to the Bill on the Motion for the Third Reading.

Mr. MAXTON: I apologise. I draw to a rapid conclusion The wise thing for this House to do in this matter of Unemployment Insurance is to recognise that the Unemployment Insurance Fund on its old basis should not be asked to cover ever 2,000,000 people. A scheme which was devised to carry 600,000 people should not be asked to carry over
2,000,000. The State should fearlessly, frankly and honestly shoulder the whole financial responsibility for the maintenance of all the unemployed on a more generous basis than they are being maintained to-day, and should recognise that the condition in which we are to-day is not a responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of the unemployed; it is not a responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of the captains of industry. It is a responsibility that rests mainly on the financiers of this country and upon the successive Governments. It is the duty of a Government to govern, and government always means compelling some section of the community to do something that that section does not want to do in the interests of the whole. As it was always the duty of Governments in the past to make the working class do something disagreeable and keep them
under, it is the duty of a Labour Government to face up to the financiers and to make them do something they do not want to do, to make them subservient to the general welfare of the body politic, instead of making them tyrants over the nation as a whole

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I agree with a great deal that has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Nobody on this side of the House wants to starve the unemployed, but one must utter a note of warning. We know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the finances of the country. Those who are engaged in the City and in commerce know perfectly well that w hat he said is true. The country is getting to the state when it does not know where the money is to he found to finance all these schemes. It is all very well for my friends from the Clyde to say that a new loan came out and was subscribed four times over by 10 o'clock. What happened was that people, who wanted £1,000 of the loan, knowing it was going to he oversubscribed, applied for 10 times that amount. That gives the impression that there is any amount of money in the country. But there is not the amount of money to finance these schemes in the way the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) would like to see them financed. What happens to a shipwrecked crew? They get on board a boat and have a certain amount of rations. They have to divide the rations in the most economical way possible so that there is some sort of chance—

Mr. MAXTON: In the most equal way.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: In the most fair way possible. I quite agree with that. Everybody is more or less rationing. I do not know anyone who has the money to throw about that my hon. Friends on the other side seem to think there is. I have gone closely into this question of unemployment insurance and, as far as I can see, any man who is now working and paying his unemployment insurance while getting a full week's work is contributing something like 9d. a week towards the unemployed. I do not believe that there is a man who minds paying this 9d. to the unemployed, but he does object to paying it to anybody who does not need the 9d. Every single penny paid to someone who does not need it
helps, more or less, to keep somebody else out of a job. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bridgeton to, shake his head and look wise. His needs, like mine, are very small. He does not want very much as long as he has a good audience and he is one of the lucky persons who can always command a good audience with his wonderful voice and his wonderful way of getting it off his chest. I am only a poor simple man, but I speak of what I know and I know the workingmen, perhaps just as well as hon. Members opposite. I know how generous they are and I know that they do not want to draw the dole unless it is shoved at them but you cannot blame anyone who has it shoved at him for taking it. Hon. Members opposite know of all the married women who are drawing the dole and who, if they were genuinely seeking work, would not be drawing it. We have to do something to see that they do not continue to get it. I am not afraid to go to my constituency and say so, and I have done it. Most of the people there may be getting the dole, but they are people who have earned it and who are genuinely seeking work and cannot get it. We want to keep out the people who are not really badly off. I had an instance the other day of a woman who had bought a new fur coat for £40 and she said she had saved the price of it out of the money which she had drawn from the dole. [Laughter.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like to hear these things.

Mr. BATEY: It is not true.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: It is true and I can produce proof of it quite easily. Is a person in those circumstances justified in drawing the dole? Hon. Members know that there are any amount of eases just as bad as that.

Mr. LOGAN: Was it Russian fur?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I am not an expert in furs.

Mr. TILLETT: That story has barnacles on it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It has grown a beard.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: No, it is a perfectly true story and my point is that the 9d. a week which these working men have to pay, goes towards giving doles to people who do
not deserve them. Every person who is taking the dole and who does not need it, is helping to place the country in a worse position and is keeping somebody out of a job.

Mr. MacLAREN: Like the Duke of Westminster.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: The Duke of Westminster employs far more labour—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep to the subject before the House.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I am very sorry, but these interruptions have rather distracted me. However I am in the fortunate position of being one who hardly ever speaks here and when I do speak, hon. Members generally allow me to tell them the truth. Personally I am sorry that we are not going to divide against the Bill because I think it absurd to give the Government a, free hand for such a long period. This sum will not last long and we do not know what proposal they will come back with, but we know that there is going to be a Budget which will increase unemployment. I hope that my hon. Friends will reconsider their decision and divide against a Bill which gives this absurd amount of latitude to the Government.

11.0 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) told us that for the last 12 years the Treasury view had been that the country should economise, but that unemployment had gone up and up. But he did not make the logical deduction, which is the fact that we have not economised and that is why unemployment has gone up. If we had accepted the Treasury view that economy was necessary, we should not have got the result that we have to-day and such a colossal number of unemployed, which has gone up in proportion to the extravagance of the present Government. The hon. Member used a very dangerous argument when he said to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett), "What would you have done?" We should not have done what his own Front Bench did in Nottingham, and that is deliberately to throw out of work a lot of hands in the lace industry. To that
extent we should have improved on the position in which we find ourselves today. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Bridgeton.

Mr. MAXTON: It is not an answer at all.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is an answer. I want to protest that the Minister of Labour was not here during the first half hour of this Debate and that the Parliamentary Secretary did not get up to move the Third Reading until pressed to do so by my hon. and gallant. Friend on the Front Bench. It is a Bill which possibly they did not want to say very much about, because the right hon. Lady earlier, the first time she introduced one of these borrowing Measures, called it a vicious thing to do, the second time she called it dishonest, the third time she called it monstrous, and this time, I imagine, her adjectives have run dry, and so she preferred not to be here when the Third Reading was called. I hope she will, before the Debate ends, amplify something which she said on the Second Reading. The unemployment register stands at 2,600,000, which is an increase of 1,500,000 since the present Government took office, and in the course of her speech in Committee on the Money Resolution, the right hon. Lady seemed to be inclined to the view which was prevalent about 100 years ago in this country, that owing to the growth of machinery unemployment automatically increased. She particularly instanced something which happens to be made in my constituency, and that is a cigarette machine which turns out—I think she said—1,200 cigarettes a minute. She said:
Not more than three employés are needed to attend to the machine, and its productive capacity is equal to 700 hands; that is to say, 700 hands used to be employed in turning out cigarettes which are now turned out by three persons."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1931; col. 908, Vol. 248.]
The implication is that, as a result of the invention of that particular machine, 700 less three, that is to say, 697 people are to-day out of work. If that were going on all over the country, and if that were a true reading of the facts, the unemployment figures would rise rapidly to a colossal extent. Is there any reason
for that argument? Is it really true to say that a machine which is capable of doing the work of 700 hands actually displaces that number of people? The right hon. Lady may have a 60 horse-power motor car, but it would not be true to say that because she has that horsepower, she is not using 60 horses, because I do not suppose that it would have entered her head to use that number. The House will see what a ridiculous argument that is, but it is the logical conclusion of what she told us on the Committee stage. The lighting of this Chamber might be 20,000 candle-power, but that does not mean that if we had not this system of lighting, we should have to have 20,000 candles. It is an absurd argument, and has nothing to do with the number of people who might have been employed if a particular machine had never been invented. The right hon. Lady told us that 10,000 less people were employed in bread making, and that she had not been able to track out what had happened to those people in the last 10 years. Of course she has not been able to track them out, but she must take into account what new industries have been growing up.
Has she taken into account the number of people who have gone into the wireless industry or into any other form of recent industry. Foolish as many of their arguments are, I hope that Ministers are not going to add this idiotic one to their repertory, but will devote themselves to trying to find better ways of employing the people. I trust that the Minister will see that as many of these up-to-date machines are employed, because in that way she will improve the employment in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I hope that the Minister will also give up the economic blizzard argument, because it has gone quite out of date. We have heard it repeated again and again, and it comes very ill from the right hon. Lady, because we have it on record that the Labour party declines to accept the placid assumption that in the 20th century the recurrence of involuntary idleness is to be regarded, like tempests and earthquakes, as an act of God. The Labour party declines in its publication, "Labour and the Nation," to accept that. They declined to accept that argument two years ago, but to-day, when
the figures are 1,500,000 more than when they took office, they find it a handy refuge in time of trouble.

Mr. TILLETT: With reference to the displacement of men by machines, unemployment is bound to increase when efficiency increases. I would like to give a case from Germany, where 88 furnaces are supplied with brown coal scooped out from a quarry, supplied at the rate of 2s. per ton, loaded by automatic machinery in trucks, then into hoppers automatically controlled, and passed on by belts to the 88 furnaces. One individual controls the whole of the furnaces. The debris is watered and sucked in by machinery, and loaded up also by mechanical means. Without this great miracle of man's ingenuity, there would have been 150 persons employed. Thyssen's—formerly a Scottish family—produce 1,000 tons of iron from their blast furnaces per day with the aid of 30 men. In the ordinary course of things it would need 300 men. They supply the heat and the electric energy with the aid of 30 men, where formerly 300 or 400 men were employed.
The tendency of rationalisation is to dispense with labour. I say quite frankly that we accept the inevitable, but we do not accept the inevitability of poverty arising as a result of greater efficiency and greater production. If one family can now produce what 100 families were needed to produce formerly, we say that every one of those 100 families has the right to enjoy the benefits of this revolution in industry. Shall all the benefit go to the great financiers? When it is said that we are spending £100,000,000 a year on the unemployed, I would remind the House that the country earns £4,200,000,000 a year, and that 15,000,000 persona and their families receive £1,750,000,000 of it and 2,000,000 persons with their families receive £2,000,000,000. The great financiers have not been sent to the poor house, they have not been on the dole. The families with great incomes have been on the dole for hundreds of years, And we do not grumble at that: but the man who says that the rationalisation of industry—which we accept—does not bring poverty and unemployment has not read or thought, at least he has not suffered. In the great German iron and steel industry a reduction of the number
of men from 356,000 to 290,000 was accompanied by an increase of 50 per cent. in production—even 100 per cent.
I am not here to be angry, because the moment is too serious to be angry, but if you do not have war to murder us, why do you murder us by starvation? Why will you not accept your responsibility? If there was a danger to-morrow you would call upon us. There would be no sneers or jeers; none of this meticulous nonsense would be talked about poverty not increasing with evolution and development. It is bound to increase under the capitalistic system, and as poverty increases the Empire weakens in proportion.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will agree that he is going outside this Bill.

Mr. TILLETT: I bow to your Ruling, but I hope that the logic of the position may appeal to the other side. I am very sorry. I did not wish to transgress any usage or procedure of this House, but I do feel that the other side has not honestly met us with a sense of patriotism and community. I fully realise the absurdity of their arguments, and it is their lack of logic which compels me to emotion which probably I ought not to possess, but I am very human, Mr. Speaker, and I wish you to forgive me. When the argument is used that increased efficiency will bring prosperity and that low wages will bring increased efficiency then hon. Members are not telling the truth, and their economics are baseless.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Everyone, I think, must rise to the sincerity which has been shown in the remarks made by the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett), but I would like for a few minutes to dissociate myself entirely from some of the remarks of my hon. friends on the other side of the Gangway. It is obvious that the Bill must be passed. It is obvious that the Third Reading must take place. It is obvious that these men must live. It is obvious that they have been put out of employment by first one Government and then another, and they have been, unfortunately, put out by the present Government. They must be fed, and they must live, and it is the duty of this House to see that they do live. On that point, we are all agreed. We naturally dislike
the idea of forfeiting our right to control the expenditure of this money for six months, but at the same time we realise that this Bill has got to such a position that we ought to safeguard the interests of those poor devils who are out of work and that the Third Reading must pass.
It seems to me that we are tackling the whole problem from the wrong point of view. While we admit that the money must be found, we are facing the problem from the wrong side. On the other side, the Government believe in doing the work of the physician, but we believe in doing the work of the surgeon. It is like a body with an evil cancerous growth, and the Government apply a piece of sticking plaster. As the growth spreads with its vicious force the plaster is increased. That is the method of the Government in dealing with Unemployment Insurance. As the cancer of unemployment grows so the fund is developed to meet it, and the sticking plaster is increased. But the cancer is there underneath and those on this side of the House and some hon. Members opposite would like to devote their energies to the task of finding a method, a knife that will cut out this cancer and thus bring hack work and prosperity to the people. There are many solutions of this problem before us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is not here now, would apply a good strong tonic—

Mr. SPEAKER: The particular solution that we have to discuss to-night is the Third Reading of this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I bow to your Ruling, but the argument I was trying to develop was that, instead of giving these millions of money towards feeding these unfortunate people, we should be doing far better by applying ourselves to the production of work for them, so as to avoid the necessity of paying them unemployment benefit.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in order on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I will only say, further, that there is, of course, the solution which we advanced—I will not go into it now—which has been backed up by the Trades Union Congress, by the
bankers, and by industrialists, and, therefore, there is nothing for me to say about it; but I would ask the trade union Members on the other side of the House, who feel, with us, in spite of the inactivity of the Government, that there is something that can be done other than "dishing out" money, that there is something bigger and better to do than dealing out millions—I would ask them, what are they going to do? Are they going to sit still while the Chancellor of the Exchequer lets drip bitter words which mean the death of British trade; or are they going, like a Greek chorus—[Interruption]. It is all very well to say that this has nothing to do with the unemployed, but, if hon. Members would think more of the unemployed and less of the words they say in this House, they would be doing far better. The trade union Members are the people who are concerned. They were elected to safeguard the rights and standards of life, the pay and the wages, of the members of their unions; they are the people who are really concerned. Are they going to allow matters to go on like this, with the House meeting again every three months, or every six months, and voting further money for the unemployed Are they going to set their energies to finding work for the unemployed, or are they going to follow their Government down the slope of incompetence, like Gadarene swine rushing down into the pit?

Sir BASIL PETO: Before this Debate closes, I wish to bring it back to the very few introductory remarks made by the Under-Secretary. He began with what I hold to be an entire mis-statement. He said that, if we did not pass this Bill to increase the borrowing powers of the fund from £70,000,000 to £90,000,000, there would be no money left from which to find unemployment benefit for those who are out of work. Anyone who has followed these Debates and the Amendments in Committee will know perfectly well that that is not a true statement. We know from all the precedents that the proper amount for the Government to ask for at a single time, in these times of stress, is £10,000,000, and not £20,000,000, and, therefore, I think the House is entitled to hear, before the Third Reading of this Bill is passed, some really valid reason why we should pass a Bill giving away
the control of this House for double the usual period, and giving the Government power to raise a further £20,000,000.
We know the sort of reasons that have been given. The Committee failed; the Royal Commission is sitting; and so on. But that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. This proposal would only have been justified if the Government could have come to the House and said, "We recognise that there is only one cure for unemployment, and that is to find work for people in the industries of the country. We have definite proposals. They will take more than three or four months to work out. Give us six months in which to show how our proposals are going to work, and give us the necessary finance meanwhile." There is no Member of this House, if any such proposal had been put before us, who would have refused, or thought of refusing in those circumstances, to give them these great powers to borrow another £20,000,000.
We have waited here for over 20 months, and we have never had a single suspicion of any idea from the Government Benches, or from the back benches opposite, even including the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), or from any of the sections or small groups into which the party opposite is divided, which would give us the smallest indication that they have any proposals whatever for really dealing with this great problem, and it was in order that they might deal with it, that the country gave them its votes at the last election. In view of that, we are utterly wrong to give them more than the very briefest breathing space, to yield our control of this constant repetition of borrowing, which leads us nowhere except into further financial difficulties and further unemployment. I recognise that it is too late to oppose the Third Reading. We should, so to speak, revise the whole of this policy, but that cannot be done. Our protests have been effectively made on the Second Reading and in Committee. What hon. Members below will have to say for their part in these Debates I leave to them, but I should like to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Bridgeton. He was dealing with the origin—

Mr. SPEAKER: I called the hon. Member to order for using arguments
that were irrelevant; I cannot allow the hon. Baronet to answer him.

Sir B. PETO: You have misunderstood me, Sir. I wish to deal with the earlier part of the hon. Member's speech on which you did not call him to order. He said it was because of the Act of 1927, and that, therefore, it was our responsibility, and he pointed to the fact that at that time we had put certain Estimates before the House which showed that we were justified in passing that Measure. Surely the hon. Member is wrong in arguing that if, several years ago, a particular method of dealing with this problem was right, therefore it must necessarily be right now under utterly altered conditions. He said that we, like other Governments, said there was a silver lining to the clouds. At that time unemployment was not increasing. Up to the day when we left office it was constantly decreasing. There was more and more silver on the lining, until at the end it was almost a golden lining. We had almost reached the million level and, if we had been left alone to continue our work, there would have been a very different tale to tell and our finance would have been justified. The Government came in and sat still for 20 months without a single idea how to deal with the problem. We have now come to a wholly different set of considerations. The hon. Member always interests the House but, when he assumes the roll of prophet, he is not always successful.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Baronet says this Government came in and for 20 months did nothing. During that period the policy that was governing the general conditions of this country, assuming that the Government did nothing, was the policy which had been imposed upon the country by the previous Government. [An HON. MEMBER: 'Oh, no!"] Oh, yes, surely. For four years and a-half the Conservative Government were in power. They brought in their big ideas of derating and electricity supply. These were in operation and the Labour Government did not remove them. Therefore, it was the Tory policy which was operating during the first twenty months that the present Government were in office.

Sir B. PETO: The hon. Member is trying to lead me on to dangerous ground.
Year by year we produced different methods of dealing with the essential cause of this question. There was derating and so forth, and, among other Measures, Safeguarding. What have the Government done? Simply reversed them.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not attempt to go over that ground.

Sir B. PETO: Naturally, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Those were interruptions which I really thought had to do with the argument which I had put before the House, which was simply on the finance of this Measure. I hold that we were justified in acting upon the basis of the finance introduced into the 1927 Act. It was working and was within measureable distance of showing a balance. If it had been allowed to go on working under the then conditions it would have been fully justified. We have had no justification for the proposal put before the House at the commencement of the Debate other than that we must pass the Bill, because otherwise there will be no money available for payment. I cannot imagine a more complete admission of absolute and utter failure on the part of a Government who have come to the House three or four times and have said: "All we can propose is to borrow, borrow, and to hand on to posterity the burdens which should be borne to-day in an entirely different manner—to hand on to them now burdens in double measure Why? Because throughout the time we have been in office we have been unable to produce a single idea to deal with this problem."

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I should like to refer to the extended benefit, which is at the present time attached to the Unemployment Insurance Fund although the Exchequer is bearing the whole of the cost. The people who are on extended benefit and who pass completely out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund are receiving from the Exchequer exactly the same benefits and in exactly the same form as if they were paying contributions to the fund. That, in my opinion, is fundamentally unsound and wrong in principle. They have no right whatever to be treated exactly on the same basis. Those who are subscribing to the fund
will naturally argue: "We are subscribing to the fund, and we receive certain benefits, and there are others who have passed completely out of the fund and are receiving exactly the same benefits in exactly the same manner. Why should we subscribe? Why should there be a contributory insurance scheme at all if those who have once subscribed and have passed beyond the scheme are still receiving exactly the same benefits as we are receiving? "That is a principle which cannot possibly be continued. It would cut at the very root of unemployment contributory insurance. It really is carrying out in practice the theory of the Socialist party of work or maintenance. I think that it is agreed by all parties in the House that a non-contributory insurance scheme is an absolute impossibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The country is not able to afford it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the Debate. We are not discussing a non-contributory scheme now.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The Government will have to face the fact that the benefits which are given to those who have passed out of the present unemployment insurance scheme and who are to-day receiving exactly the same benefits as those who are contributing to that scheme, will have to be put on a different level and will have to be paid in a different manner. There can be no doubt about that. The Government have not the courage to face up to the facts. It is unpleasant for any party which is in power to face the facts, and tell the people that it is necessary that this thing should be done.
There is another point, and I hope that I shall be in order in referring to it. In order to obtain the necessary finance and to continue to get these enormous sums of money, which the country is bound to find in one way or another, and which at the present time are crippling industry, for ultimately this money has to he found by industry, we shall have to adopt different methods. One hon. Member spoke about rationalisation, and he blamed rationalisation for the present condition of things. The Minister of Labour also blamed rationalisation. Every party has been saying to the employers: "Why do you not rationalize, in order that you may em-
ploy more people, eventually? Your machinery is out of date. Your producing methods are obsolete. Everything is wrong with your industry. You do not know how to run your industry. If you would rationalise your industry you would do well, and we should not have to come again and again to the House of Commons to ask for immense sums of money for the unemployed."
Immediately industry is rationalised, hon. Members find fault. They cannot have it both ways. At the present time the output of industry is very small and the employers are unable on that output to sell their goods cheaply, to employ more people and to prevent the Government from having to come and ask for these enormous sums of money. In order to deal with the situation there should be some positive scheme for employing our people, which would render it unnecessary to keep coming to the House for these votes of money. If I am in order, I would suggest that the way to obtain the necessary finance is to tax the foreign product that is coming into this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing that.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I thought that on the question of obtaining the finance, I might suggest one way of relieving the Exchequer, of employing more people, and of obtaining better and greater production, thereby reducing the cost of the article, increasing the number of people employed and making it less necessary to come to this House and ask for these large sums of money, of which apparently, there will be no end.

Mr. TINKER: There is one point in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member which I would like to refute. In this Bill there are two grants, one for transitional conditions and the other for standard benefit. The last speaker and other speakers have stated that those who are getting standard benefit are complaining that those who are getting conditional benefit have no right to it. The hon. and gallant Member and the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) made that statement. I want to refute it. I have never heard any complaint from those who are receiving standard benefit against those who are receiving transitional benefit. Those who are receiving standard benefit know that at any time that they may pass to the transitional conditions, and consequently they recognise that their poor brethren are as much entitled to benefit as they are. I do not want it to go forward that the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member and other hon. Members is the feeling of the country. The unemployed are quite willing to share the burden equally so that everybody shall get the same.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.